Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

African Cotton

Mark Lazarowicz: What steps he is taking to support the development of the cotton sector in west and central African countries.

Gareth Thomas: Subsidies paid to European Union and United States cotton producers are one of the clearest examples of how Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development farm subsidies harm the developing world. In recent months, those subsidies have decreased world cotton prices by at least 20 per cent. As a result, many of the poorest west and central African producers struggle to make a living. We will continue to work within the international community, the European Commission and other EU member states to ensure that meaningful trade reform, particularly reform of the EU cotton subsidy regime, remains an essential part of the response to the problems faced by cotton producers in Africa.

Mark Lazarowicz: I thank my hon. Friend for that positive response. Will his Department use its voice in the donor community to ensure that there is no suggestion of a linkage between technical assistance and development aid for cotton producing countries and their being required to drop their opposition to the subsidies from the US and EU that cause many of the problems of over-production and dumping? As it has been suggested that there should be some such linkage, can he give an assurance that the Government will oppose that?

Gareth Thomas: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. For a demonstration of our support for the west and central African producers, we need look no further than the fact that when they brought their case to the World Trade Organisation meeting in Cancun last year, they did so with the support of a number of donors, including some Euros50,000 from the Government.

Vincent Cable: While it is undoubtedly true that cotton growers have been badly hit by protectionist subsidy policies, particularly in the United States, is it not also the case that if they tried to add value by processing and manufacturing the cotton they would be hit again by tariff escalation and quotas, especially in the European Union? What is the Minister doing about that?

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that additional issue, which we are continuing to debate with our European colleagues in order to secure meaningful reform across the piece. As he may know, an EU-Africa cotton partnership is being worked on. Indeed, the next discussion on that agreement takes place tomorrow in the EU's Development and Co-operation Committee. That will cover not only the specific issue of subsidy, but the wider points about processing that he raised.

David Taylor: Is it not the case that aggregate subsidies to cotton farmers in the rich world exceed $5 billion a year, while poor cotton farmers in Africa make an average of $400 per year? Is not that an obscene inequity and should not we, as a leading nation in the field of international development, be doing much more to ensure that world trade works more in favour of cotton-producing countries in Africa?

Gareth Thomas: I agree with my hon. Friend's substantive point. It is worth flagging up the fact that some 15 million people in Africa depend directly or indirectly on the cotton sector. It is therefore not surprising that the developing countries regard the issue of cotton subsidies as totemic and want progress made in order to have confidence that the developed world is serious about trade reform. We in the UK are working hard in the European Commission with other EU member states, and on an international basis through discussions with the G20 and others, to try to achieve the meaningful progress that all Members would welcome.

Occupied Territories

Joan Ruddock: What assistance his Department is giving to Palestinians in the occupied territories.

Hilary Benn: The Department provides technical assistance and financial support to the Palestinian Authority, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, and Palestinian civil society. DFID's development programme aims to support preparation for a peace process, to make Palestinian governance and institutions more effective and accountable and to encourage more harmonised delivery of humanitarian and development assistance. DFID expects to spend £40 million on support to the Palestinians in the current financial year.

Joan Ruddock: Two weeks ago, I was in Gaza. I saw farmers whose orchards had been ploughed up by Israeli tanks, fishermen who had been deprived of their fishing rights and a whole population trapped in the equivalent of a prison lock-down. Following the UN's announcement that food aid to Gaza is to be suspended, does my right hon. Friend agree that the present Israeli policy is leading to a humanitarian crisis to which the Palestinian Authority will not be able to respond? What contingency plans does he have for such a situation?

Hilary Benn: I, too, saw the same sights when I was in Gaza last summer: I am sure that hon. Members know that 1.5 million Palestinians depend on food aid, 60 per cent. of the Palestinian population live on less than $2.10 a day and poverty has increased dramatically since the intifada. I share my hon. Friend's concern that the restrictions on humanitarian access to Gaza that the Israeli Government have introduced are a major constraint on aid and services, not only for the Palestinian Authority, which she mentioned, but for the United Nations and other agencies. We are therefore lobbying the Israeli Government hard to ensure that there is adequate humanitarian access because that is essential if the condition of the Palestinian people is not to worsen further.

Tony Baldry: If there is to be Palestinian statehood, there needs to be an effective and accountable Palestinian Authority. Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most essential reforms of the Palestinian Authority is that of their security services? What are the United Kingdom Government doing to assist the reform of the Palestinian security services and the provision of a security infrastructure?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman is right in identifying security as fundamental to putting the peace process back on track and to progress, which is not currently happening. As all hon. Members recognise, Israel and its people have the right to security, and many of its citizens have lost their lives. Many Palestinians have also been killed in the intifada. It is the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority to make every effort to tackle security and thus build confidence in the road map and the peace process.
	Part of the UK Government's support has been for security sector reform, but the Palestinian Authority must make a greater effort and be seen to be doing that because progress on security is fundamental. Indeed, it is the key to progress on the peace process, which all hon. Members want.

Andrew Dismore: What recent discussions has my right hon. Friend held with Dr. Salam Fayyad, the Palestinian Finance Minister, about ensuring the complete transparency and accountability of all aid to the Palestinian Authority, including that contained in the presidential accounts?

Hilary Benn: Although I have not held recent discussions with Dr. Fayyad, I did so in the summer when I was in the Palestinian territories. I am sure that all hon. Members would wish to express appreciation for his work in reforming the operation of the Palestinian Authority's accounts and finances. Indeed, he has won widespread praise from all quarters for the steps that he has taken to deal with the issue that my hon. Friend raised.
	Transparency, accountability and openness in the use of resources are fundamental to the effective operation of the Palestinian Authority, although we must recognise the difficult and challenging circumstances under which they work.

John Bercow: Given that agriculture, which was long the backbone of the economies of the west bank and Gaza, has been decimated in the past decade or so and that people who live in those territories receive approximately only one quarter of the water that is available to people in Israel, does the Secretary of State accept that it is essential urgently to press for a new and fairer division of water resources in the interests of both human health and agricultural recovery?

Hilary Benn: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Problems of access to agriculture partly arise through an uneven distribution of water, to which he drew attention. It also arises from building the security barrier. In Qalqilya, I could see for myself that it encircles the town completely and that farmers find it difficult to get access to their land. Part of the UK Government's work is providing support to the Palestinian Authority through the negotiation support unit. It has been working on trying to open up and maintain negotiations on water because that, too, is fundamental to progress on the peace process.

Mr. Speaker: I call Richard Burden.

Richard Burden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bercow has two questions.

John Bercow: If you can bear it, Mr. Speaker, I am most grateful to you.
	I am also grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer. I echo his balanced and fair comments and the remarks of my co-visitor to the west bank and Gaza, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), but does he agree that, although Israel is entitled to defend itself, it cannot be right that the route of the security fence denies the people of Palestinian towns and villages access to their land, water, health and education services? Does he also agree that the only effect of such activity is gravely to undermine the genuine humanitarian and development efforts that he and others make in the interests of the long-suffering people of those territories?

Hilary Benn: We can always bear to listen to the contributions of the hon. Gentleman, not least on this occasion, as I can say for the second time that I agree with every word that he said. It is self-evident that the security wall, which is a symptom of the fundamental political problem, is doing to the people living in the Palestinian territories all the things that he outlined. That is why a political solution is the only way to resolve the difficulties relating to access to land, to visiting families and to getting health care, and all the other difficulties that arise because of the closures that Palestinians experience daily. The only route out of all of that is a political route, which is what all hon. Members wish to see as soon as possible.

Richard Burden: My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have all spoken eloquently of the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in the occupied territories, which they have seen with their own eyes. Does not the real challenge for the international community involve not just what we say about these things but what we do? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the EU-Israel association agreement contains humanitarian clauses, and that, if Israel is not prepared to abide by its humanitarian obligations, we should warn it that that agreement may need to be reconsidered?

Hilary Benn: I understand my hon. Friend's point, and I know that he takes a close interest in these matters. It is, however, a matter of judgment as to whether such a step would be helpful, and the Government's view is that it would not be. I would also say to my hon. Friend that international pressure, support and interest are extremely important but, in the end, there has to be a negotiated settlement between the two parties. While we are doing all that we can to encourage that negotiation to take place, the two parties have to want it to happen. Sadly, that is what is lacking at the moment.

Tom Brake: Does the Secretary of State agree that the best hope for development in the occupied territories is an end to the occupation and, of course, an end to terrorism? Will he confirm the Government's position on the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza? Does he agree that the proposed withdrawal would be acceptable only as part of a negotiated final agreement that would include a withdrawal from the west bank?

Hilary Benn: The proposal for the unilateral withdrawal potentially opens up opportunities, but they will depend on the basis on which it takes place and the extent to which there is negotiation and discussion, not least with the Palestinian Authority, about how it is going to be done. It is important that the Israeli Government should now clarify precisely what their proposals are, and if there is an opportunity it would clearly be in everyone's interest to take it. At the moment, it is unclear precisely what the proposals involve.

AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

Tony Lloyd: What steps his Department is taking to mobilise international action to combat AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

Hilary Benn: The Department for International Development provides significant resources through its bilateral programmes to combat AIDS, TB and malaria. We also work with a number of health partnerships, including the global fund to fight AIDS, TB and malaria, to improve the international effort in fighting those diseases and to ensure that resources are used effectively and directed to the poorest. We will use the opportunity of our presidencies of the G8 and of the EU in 2005 to push for greater international action to tackle those terrible diseases of poverty.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend knows as well as I do that these three killers, along with poverty, are devastating huge parts of the globe, particularly Africa. They do not simply take lives and destroy families; they also destroy economies and whole societies. Does he accept that it is in our own national self-interest to mobilise international effort to a level that we have not yet seen? If we do not take such action, we in Europe and north America will just as surely inherit the problems caused by that social and economic dislocation as Africa and other parts of the poor world will in their own right.

Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. We have both a moral and a practical duty to do all that we can to fight these three terrible diseases. One million people die in Africa each year from malaria; 90 per cent. of them are children under the age of five. TB kills 2 million people a year, and we all know the terrible statistics of the HIV/AIDS crisis. One of the instruments that we have is the global fund, into which the UK is putting $280 million up to 2008. We also need to ensure that all this international effort is used in the most effective way to support developing country Governments in tackling the scourge of those epidemics.

Alistair Burt: The Secretary of State will recognise that one of the worst cultural effects of the tragedy of AIDS is the creation, in societies in which abandoned children have been unknown, of extended families and communities that can no longer cope with the number of orphaned children that they are left to look after. Will he note the work done by agencies such as World Vision, which are trying to draw more attention to that problem, and indicate how the international community can help tackle the cultural and practical crisis caused by the number of orphaned children?

Hilary Benn: That is a serious and growing problem, not only for the generation of grandparents who are having to look after a generation of grandchildren because the generation in between is dying out. When there are not grandparents to care for the children who have been orphaned, the responsibility falls on others in the community. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the international community needs to do more. That is one of the questions that the new strategy on fighting HIV/AIDS that I intend to publish during the summer will address.

Cameroon

David Chaytor: What support his Department is giving to the development of sustainable forestry in Cameroon.

Gareth Thomas: The Department for International Development's support for sustainable forestry in Cameroon will be channelled through the Cameroon Government's five-year forest and environment sector programme. The programme will help to improve the Cameroon Government's capacity for sustainable forest management, increase community involvement in the management of forests, help to achieve more sustainable use of natural resources, and help to improve management of wildlife resources and conservation. In addition, we are encouraging the Cameroon Government to develop a voluntary partnership agreement with the European Union to support reforms and prevent illegal exports of timber.

David Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend accept that the rain forest in Cameroon has exceptional if not unique qualities, both in terms of its biodiversity and its capacity to serve as a carbon sink to alleviate the effects of climate change? Does he agree that, although logging may bring a short-term economic benefit, the long-term economic benefit to Cameroon lies in the development of ecotourism in the rain forest? Will he ensure that his officials advise the Cameroon Government on these issues and the potential for the development of ecotourism?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend is right that the tropical rain forest in Cameroon is a unique natural resource, but we should not concentrate only on the Cameroonian tropical rain forest. We need to recognise that it is part of a wider rain forest across the Congo basin. My hon. Friend may be aware of the initiative that was launched at the world summit on sustainable development to support forest conservation in the Congo basin forest partnership. One objective of that programme will be to support the development of ecotourism. Our programme of work to develop the capacity of the Cameroonian Government will help to support that objective.

Zimbabwe

Colin Breed: If he will make a statement on action being taken in response to the food crisis in Zimbabwe.

Hilary Benn: Up to 8 million Zimbabweans face food shortages prior to the harvest in April this year. The United Nations World Food Programme is the principal distributor of food aid in Zimbabwe and is targeting more than 4 million beneficiaries. DFID pledged £5 million to the WFP for food relief in Zimbabwe in October 2003. In addition, we are providing supplementary feeding through international and Zimbabwean non-governmental organisations for approximately 1 million beneficiaries—[Interruption.] Those include households affected by HIV/AIDS, malnourished children under five, school children, displaced farm workers and other vulnerable groups. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to come to order. It is unfair to those Members who are speaking.

Colin Breed: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He will be aware of newspaper reports indicating that food aid is now being channelled through charities and businesses that are allies of Mr. Mugabe. I understand that he has an official investigation under way, but can he tell the House what steps he is taking with his European colleagues to ensure that conditions specifying that EU food aid must not be used by the Zimbabwean Government for political purposes are enforced?

Hilary Benn: We have discussed this in the House on a number of occasions, but I repeat what I have said before: we will not tolerate political interference with the food aid distributed by the World Food Programme and non-governmental organisations. It is very tightly controlled and monitored. That is separate from what happens to food aid distributed by the grain marketing board, which is controlled by the Zimbabwe Government.
	As I have told the House before, if there is any evidence of examples of interference with the aid that we are distributing, I should be grateful if Members would bring it to my attention immediately. I shall then arrange for it to be investigated, because we have a clear and strong policy. We simply will not tolerate such interference.

Bill Olner: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend reiterated his firm opposition to the use of food aid for political purposes. May I urge him to be much stronger in ensuring that clarity surrounds food distribution?
	The biggest tragedy of Zimbabwe, however, is that a very fertile African country cannot feed itself because it is no longer producing food. Will my right hon. Friend engage in talks with colleagues in the United Nations about increasing Zimbabwe's own food production?

Hilary Benn: There are 1,600 distribution sites where international food aid is given out. In January, four minor incidents were reported to us, all of which I understand have been resolved. But my hon. Friend is right: the tragedy of Zimbabwe lies in the fact that 25 years ago it not only fed itself, but contributed to the feeding of the rest of Africa. The present situation is a clear sign of the extent of the mismanagement of the country, and the tragedy that has been brought about by President Mugabe's rule. Now the country cannot feed itself, and that will not change until there is political change there.

Julian Brazier: Following his two earlier answers, will the Secretary of State recognise that it is Mugabe who is behind both the food shortages and the attacks on distribution centres in opposition areas? When will the Government acknowledge that quiet diplomacy has failed, and it is time to put pressure on neighbouring states—most of which are recipients of British aid—to put pressure themselves on Mugabe to stop this?

Hilary Benn: I agree with the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I do not accept the premise on which he based the second part. I do not think that our diplomacy has been quiet. As he knows, EU sanctions on leading members of the regime were extended. In a very public discussion at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Abuja in December, we stood firm in supporting Zimbabwe's continued suspension from the Commonwealth, and that was eventually agreed. However, I share his view that it would be nice to hear more from other voices in Africa about what is going on in Zimbabwe. I commend Archbishop Tutu, for example, for speaking out against it—and he too has urged other Africans to follow suit.

Peter Pike: As my right hon. Friend says, the main problem in Zimbabwe is self-inflicted and a result of the government of President Mugabe. Will he assure the ordinary people of that tragic country that we will do everything possible to ensure that they do not starve as a result of Mugabe's appalling regime?

Hilary Benn: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is why we have so far invested £65 million in the provision of food and other humanitarian aid for the people of Zimbabwe and that is why we continue to run HIV/AIDS and other health programmes in the country. The fact that the people of a country happen to have a rotten Government does not mean that the international community should abandon them.

EU Aid

Teddy Taylor: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of financial audit of EU aid; and if he will make a statement.

Gareth Thomas: Since the late 1990s, we have supported a series of reforms of EU aid programmes, which have helped to improve the effectiveness of financial audit arrangements for EU aid. They have included the establishment of a Europe aid office with an external audit unit, the establishment of an anti-fraud office, and the revision of the European Commission's financial management handbook. Further reforms are under way, such as the modernisation of accounting systems including computer systems. They should be completed by the end of next year.

Teddy Taylor: As graft and corruption appear to be very much part of the EU aid programme, and as very few people ever seem to be brought to justice, will the Secretary of State and his Department take a special interest in the appalling situation in Paraguay? The EU provided aid for the digging of some water wells, but they were not dug, and the two managers ran away with £1.5 million. Will the Secretary of State report to us if they are found and brought to justice?

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that appalling example of apparent fraud in Paraguay, but I am sure that he will be reassured to hear that it is an isolated example. He will also be pleased to learn that the two co-directors of the project were dismissed immediately, and that supervision of the project is now under the direct management of the EC's delegation in Paraguay. The Commission's anti-fraud unit is conducting an investigation that will seek to recoup the missing funds to which he referred.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Tony Baldry: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 31 March.

Tony Blair: Before announcing my engagements, I would like to begin by paying tribute to the police and security services for carrying out successfully a large-scale operation yesterday, resulting in arrests. As we have said, the UK and its interests abroad remain a terrorist target, and the Government and the services will continue to do all that we can to fight terrorism in every way.
	I would also like to welcome specifically the letter that has been sent from the Muslim Council of Britain to every mosque in the country, condemning terrorism and making it clear that such activity has nothing to do with the true message of Islam. The threat from terrorism affects every family in this country, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, and it is right that we all work together to defeat that threat, and do not allow the extremists to divide us.
	This morning I had meetings with my ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Tony Baldry: The Prime Minister should know that children's services in the Horton general hospital in Banbury are being threatened with downgrading, and that mental health care services in Banbury are threatened with closure by the strategic health authority. In Bicester, there will not now be the new and enlarged community hospital that Ministers promised us from the Dispatch Box, and the future of the existing hospital is in jeopardy. In addition, the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS Trust tells us that it is likely to be some £40 million overdrawn next year. Will the Prime Minister take time out of his schedule to visit my constituency and discover what is actually happening in the NHS?

Tony Blair: I will obviously look carefully into what the hon. Gentleman has said, but in his area, as in other areas, there has been a huge additional investment into the national health service. That is why we have cardiac deaths in this country down by more than 20 per cent., why we have cancer deaths in this country down by more than 10 per cent., why every single national waiting time and waiting list indicator is in better shape than in 1997, and why we have the largest hospital building programme that this country has seen since the beginning of the NHS.
	I will certainly look carefully into what the hon. Gentleman says, but surely the answer must be to continue the investment that we are putting into the national health service, not to transfer it out of the health service and into the private sector, which is the policy of the Conservative party.

Jim Dobbin: Many disabled children have to travel long distances to attend a school with proper wheelchair access. That is discriminatory, and it leads to an extended school day and excessive fatigue for those young children. They also lose out on local friendships. Does the Prime Minister agree that all schools in England and Wales—indeed, throughout the United Kingdom—should provide disabled access so that those disabled kids can attend schools in their own neighbourhood? That would also ensure that they and their parents could play a more inclusive part in the local community, and it would save local authorities a tremendous amount of money over a number of years.

Tony Blair: I agree in principle with what my hon. Friend says. He will know that we are trying to start such a programme, and at the moment, each local education authority is committed to ensuring that two existing schools in each local area are fully accessible. Of course, all the new schools are fully accessible. We are now committing, I think, about £100 million a year to that programme of schools access. My hon. Friend's point is absolutely right. It is important that our schools be fully accessible, and the building schools for the future programme, a huge capital investment over the next few years, should allow us to make faster progress.

Michael Howard: May I begin by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the great professionalism of our security services and the police, who appear to have thwarted what might have been a terrible attack on London? That is yet another warning, if one is needed, that we can never relax our guard. May I also join the Prime Minister in welcoming the letter from Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary-general of the Muslim Council?
	During the last month, the Government have imposed an emergency stop on immigration from Bulgaria and Romania. They have launched an in-house investigation and had to extend its remit twice. They have suspended two whistleblowers, one of whom is the British consul in Bucharest, and they have had to set up a special hotline for all other whistleblowers who want to alert the public to what is going on. Is it any wonder that everyone thinks the Government's immigration policy is in chaos?

Tony Blair: The allegations that are now being looked into by Mr. Sutton, these most recent allegations, are a different aspect but relate to the same people who were covered in the earlier investigation. It is important, obviously, that he look at both, and at all the issues concerned, including any decisions or involvement by Ministers. He will report back and then we will publish his report.

Michael Howard: If the Prime Minister were serious about getting to the bottom of what has happened, would he not have an independent inquiry? Does he not see that having an inquiry carried out by an official in the immigration department who reports to the Immigration Minister is not likely to inspire confidence in what is happening in our immigration system?
	Let us take one aspect of this shambles. Sixteen months ago Sir John Ramsden, the head of the Foreign Office's central Europe department, wrote to the Home Office telling it that immigration procedures from Bulgaria and Romania had
	"developed into an organised scam that completely undermines our Entry Control procedures"—
	16 months ago! Why was no effective action taken until yesterday?

Tony Blair: These are precisely the issues that will be covered by Ken Sutton's inquiry. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should cast aspersions on Ken Sutton's ability to do this. It allows us to do this quickly, it allows us to get to the truth of what has happened, and it allows us to take any action that is necessary.
	I would however like to set this matter in context, because I think that is important. It is important to recognise that, according to the labour force survey, of the 1 million people who are working in this country, both self-employed and employed, who are migrants from abroad—of the top 10 categories of those people, none is from Romania or Bulgaria. The vast majority of people who are migrants here are from countries such as the United States, South Africa, France and Germany and the largest proportion by a long way are from the Republic of Ireland.
	I simply say that to set this in context. A specific allegation has been made in respect of people from Romania and Bulgaria; that has to be looked into, and thoroughly. It will be, and then we will report back, and until that time we should await the judgment of Mr. Sutton.

Michael Howard: If the Prime Minister cannot tell us of a single action that his Government took after the receipt of that letter from Sir John Ramsden, let me see if I can help him, because there was one thing that they did, after they had received the letter from Sir John. The very same month they received that letter, they relaxed the immigration procedures even further. That is what they did. If everything was under control, why does not the Prime Minister explain to us why it was necessary yesterday for the Government, in panic, to put an emergency stop to all immigration from Bulgaria and Romania?

Tony Blair: I did not say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that no action had been taken; I simply said that all these issues should be covered by Mr. Sutton. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has called for an inquiry; he does not like the nature of the inquiry, but he agrees with me that there should obviously be an inquiry into these issues. It is surely sensible therefore not to speculate on what has happened but to allow Mr. Sutton to conduct the inquiry properly.
	Of course action has been taken. For example, just a short time ago, there were people arrested in respect of people smuggling specifically from Romania. There is also an operation that has been in place for a couple of years, one part of which is specifically referable to Romania and Bulgaria. That is Operation Reflex, which has actually uncovered many smuggling gangs and brought people to prosecution. However, all these things should be looked at and then a full report should be given to the House and to the country so that people know the full extent and scale of the problem and of the action that has been taken. That, in my view, is the sensible way to proceed, and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman truly wants a proper inquiry, he should surely not prejudge it.

Michael Howard: I am not asking for any speculation: I am just asking for some straight answers to some straight questions. They are questions that the Prime Minister could and should have asked of Ministers. He does not need an inquiry. We know that that letter was sent and he should have found out what action was taken.
	Let us take another example. James Cameron, our consul in Bucharest, wrote to the Home Office 17 months ago. He said:
	"The applicants rarely know what is in their business plan, cannot speak English, and have absolutely no knowledge or experience of the type of skills needed for their respective businesses. We have to date a one-legged roof tiler . . . and a number of builders and electricians who know nothing about bricks, mortar or electrical details . . . Unfortunately against our strongest recommendations these applications continue to be approved."
	Why was nothing done about that letter from the British consul?

Tony Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman now says that he does not think that an inquiry is necessary. I thought that the purpose of his original question to me was to say that it was. We have asked Ken Sutton to undertake this inquiry because the same people were the subject of the original inquiry. This is to do specifically with applications from Romania and Bulgaria, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know the sheer scale of the problem of entry visa clearance. For example, some 300,000 people a year are refused entry visa clearance into the UK and some 50,000 are turned away at port.
	Mr. Cameron has made a specific set of allegations that have to be investigated in detail and we then have to set out clearly what was done, what action was taken and whether that action fell short of what should have been done. That is precisely what Mr. Sutton will do. I would have thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have the good grace to wait until Mr. Sutton has reported before making allegations about Ministers or others.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister has to learn that he cannot avoid giving straight answers at the Dispatch Box by setting up an in-house inquiry every time something inconvenient to him is raised in the House. Three times officials have tried to raise concerns with Ministers about the chaos in our immigration system, and on each occasion nothing was done. Is that why the Home Secretary describes the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration as "first rate"? Why is it that in this Government civil servants who tell the truth are suspended, but Ministers who fail in their Departments are kept in place?

Tony Blair: The civil servants who have been suspended were suspended by their line managers in the civil service. Those decisions—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Prime Minister reply. It does no good to shout anyone down in this House.

Tony Blair: As I said, Ministers do not take the decisions to suspend civil servants: they are taken by the line management in the civil service. In respect of the matters of immigration, asylum and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, let me point out that asylum applications are now running at half what they were 18 months ago and the majority of decisions are taken within two months. Let me contrast that with the position when the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who should know a little about such matters, was Home Secretary. When he was Home Secretary, asylum applications rose by almost 50 per cent. and it took an average of 18 months to take a decision. He is therefore well aware that there will be problems with the immigration system from time to time, and we have to deal with those problems. But I would hope that he would agree with me that those problems should be set in context and that we should always be careful about the language and approach we use when talking about immigration.

Michael Howard: And we should get the facts right. When I was Home Secretary, asylum applications were reduced by 40 per cent. The Prime Minister says that they have halved—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the Government side that there will be no shouting—[Interruption.] Order.

Michael Howard: We reduced the figures from 40,000 in 1995 to 29,000 in 1996. The Prime Minister says that the figures have halved since the high watermark of asylum applications under his Government, but despite being halved, they are still almost double what they were in 1996. Now we know how they have been cut. They have been cut by telling officials to wave through other applications on the basis of forged documents. Anyone can reduce the numbers if people are told to wave through other applications on the basis of forged and fraudulent documents. On Monday, the Home Secretary said that this was all about naked politics. Yesterday, he said that it was all very serious and profound and that he was going to suspend all applications from Bulgaria and Romania. Is it not the case that the Home Secretary has lost control of his Department, that the Immigration Minister is clearly not up to her job, and that the Government's immigration system is an utter and complete shambles?

Tony Blair: First, I thought that the right hon. and learned Gentleman became Home Secretary in 1993, not 1995.

Michael Howard: indicated assent.

Tony Blair: Let us get that straight—I seem to remember, because I was shadowing the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the time. Secondly, it did indeed take an average of 18 months to take a decision. Let me read out what he said at the time when probed on that. He said:
	"It is absurd to suggest . . . that the problem of bogus asylum seekers is caused by the Government or by delays."—[Official Report, 20 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 329.]
	Let me especially take issue with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's allegation that asylum seekers are being waved through on forged documents. As he knows perfectly well, Bulgaria, which is where most of the applications come from, has never been a major country for asylum seekers. [Interruption.] What he was trying to suggest was that as the asylum figures have come down, they have been switched into other forms of immigration. [Interruption.] If he wants to get up and deny that, I will be happy to hear him, but I thought that that was the clear implication of what he said. [Interruption.] I am happy to accept that we are both agreed that the asylum figures are genuine and have come down by more than half. The truth is that the main countries for claiming asylum, the figures for which have come down, have nothing to do with EU accession countries.
	Let me repeat what I told the right hon. and learned Gentleman a moment or two ago. It is important to deal with this. There has been a serious allegation of fraud in relation to the two countries. We will investigate it properly, as we should, and report back. The issue should be handled with care for very obvious reasons, as everyone in the House knows. I am not sure that today he has quite fulfilled that.

Khalid Mahmood: I commend my right hon. Friend for the amount of aid that is given to Palestine—the UK is the largest single donor to the Palestinian Authority throughout the world—to achieve a two-state solution. Does he agree that the construction of the barrier and Israeli settlement activity are increasingly seen to be jeopardising the two-state solution? The barrier, settlement, construction and road building are effectively carving up the west bank into isolated cantons, which undermines the viability of a Palestinian state.

Tony Blair: Some of those concerns have been raised by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The most important thing is that if we could get an offer from Israel to make a substantial disengagement from Palestinian Authority territory and put in place at the same time a robust plan for the Palestinian Authority's security, there would be just a chance—even with all the serious events of the past few weeks—that we could get the middle east peace process back up and running.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the enormous amount of work that he has done in the whole of his community, in particular in the Muslim community. I know he will agree that Palestine is an issue of serious concern for that community. There could be nothing better to improve relations than real action on the middle east peace process. That has to be done, however, on the basis that we reject terrorism in all its forms.

Charles Kennedy: It is correct to concur with the salutes that the Prime Minister paid to the professionalism of our police and intelligence and security services, and also to express gratitude for the initiative taken by the Muslim Council of Britain.
	Turning to today's parliamentary business, the Prime Minister is aware that the last time we debated tuition fees, many of his Back Benchers were willing to support him in the anticipation that changes would be made to the Bill before it was discussed again. What significant concessions have the Government made during the Bill's progress?

Tony Blair: There have been changes to all the packages, not merely since the Bill was published, but before that as well. They allow us to give a very substantial package of support for the poorest students, equivalent to the amount of the highest tuition fees. As a letter from the universities pointed out today—supported by the overwhelming majority of universities—that is absolutely vital for the poorest students, as well as middle-class students, to gain access to universities.

Charles Kennedy: As members of the Committee will concur, the Government gave no significant concessions during the Bill's progress. How can the Prime Minister justify legislation that will undoubtedly deter poorer students from becoming university graduates because of the debt involved, which breaches trust with the public, given his earlier manifesto commitment, and which does not adequately tackle the fundamental financing difficulties of the universities themselves? He has been open enough to acknowledge that there is an alternative, which we have proposed, by which the top 1 per cent. of taxpayers pay a bit more, and as a result, we do not have tuition fees or top-up fees, variable or not. Surely that is a fairer approach.

Tony Blair: On whether our proposals are good for poorer students, rather than the right hon. Gentleman or I being the arbiter of that, we should listen to the chairman of Campaigning for Mainstream Universities. Its universities educate the largest number of students in the UK and the majority of students from poor backgrounds. It says:
	"The loss of the Bill would deny universities the urgently-needed funding to provide quality education and would cruelly remove the promised improvements in financial support for the poorest students."
	Financial support for the poorest students is rising under our proposals.
	At least the right hon. Gentleman has an alternative funding mechanism, unlike the Conservatives, but the problem, as I have tried to explain—I will not go over that again—[Hon. Members: "Please don't."] My correspondence with him on that topic is about as intense as any I have had since I was a very young man. The fact is that the Liberal Democrat financial commitments go far beyond the commitments he keeps giving me.

Charles Kennedy: No.

Tony Blair: They do, I am afraid. The idea that the Liberal Democrats could fund their commitments out of top-rate taxpayers is simply wrong. As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, even if we could get additional sums of money from general taxpayers or top-rate taxpayers, I honestly believe that in education we would surely have to give some priority to educating the under-fives and those people who need adult skills in the work force, many of whom currently have to pay. All we are saying is that a small proportion of the overall investment in university education should be repaid by graduates, according to their ability to pay. I think that that is a fair system which most people will support.

Andy Burnham: The Prime Minister will know that the north-west has some of the lowest turnouts at elections in the country. With that in mind, can he find any justification whatsoever for six unelected Tories blocking the chance for millions of people in the north-west to have a postal vote this summer? Does he agree that the case for reform of the House of Lords is now urgent?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is extraordinary that the other place should overrule this place on an issue to do with elections and ballots. I hope, even at this stage, that it will realise that that would be wholly wrong and completely inconsistent with the proper conventions of the House.

David Heath: I join the Prime Minister in thanking and congratulating the police and the security services on thwarting, apparently, a major atrocity. However, many people are understandably concerned, after the tragedy in Madrid, about travelling and their safety on the railways and the underground. Yet we are still no nearer to rectifying the difficulties with the communications of the police. The British Transport police complain that they have too few trained staff to give adequate anti-terrorist cover, and future funding of the BTP is in jeopardy because of the intransigence of a couple of railway companies. Can it be right that the safety of passengers from terrorist threats relies on the profit margins of train companies?

Tony Blair: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not so. We meet any demands or requests that are made for help in relation to terrorism. That is a huge priority for our country and we must make sure that we meet it. In respect of all these different issues, we are doing our very best to protect this country against any terrorist attack. As recent events have shown, not only in Spain but in respect of threats in Germany, France and virtually every major country in the world, these people will come after us in whatever way they can. We must take every measure to protect ourselves against that. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that resource will not be a constraint in doing so.

Gerry Steinberg: I have two questions and I do not know which one to ask, really.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that if the policies of the Government at the time had been similar to the policies of the present Opposition, neither the Leader of the Opposition nor I would be in the House today?

Tony Blair: I think I will take the other one.
	I am sure that that applies to the vast majority of Members, in one way or another, over the generations.

Nicholas Winterton: May I announce a vested interest in putting my question to the Prime Minister? I am an honorary vice-president of the Royal College of Midwives. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Health Committee, way back in 1992, produced a ground-breaking report on maternity services, which highlighted the vital role of midwives in maternity services. In 2001, his Government indicated that they wanted to increase the number of midwives by about 10,000. In seven years of Labour Government the numbers have increased by only 392. Will the right hon. Gentleman please give me a really good birthday present today by guaranteeing that the Government will seek to increase the numbers of midwives quickly towards that additional 10,000?

Tony Blair: I can do something towards the hon. Gentleman's birthday present. I am told that there are nearly 900 more midwives since 1997. No doubt we can dispute these figures.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are implementing a range of measures to recruit more midwives. These include improving pay and conditions and also—this is vital—encouraging the NHS to become a better, more flexible and more diverse employer, increasing training, investing in child care and attracting back returners. We are running both national and international recruiting campaigns. The target of 10,000 was obviously ambitious but we are stepping up action. At the recent midwifery conference on 16 March, the Department of Health, in association with the Royal College of Midwives, announced a six-point recruitment and retention plan. I know that that will have the hon. Gentleman's full support. It has our full support. Let us hope that it produces the results.

Eric Martlew: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I have introduced a private Member's Bill that will make it compulsory for child cyclists to wear helmets. Is he aware that, in a recent opinion poll, more than 80 per cent. of those polled agreed with the aims of my Bill? Is he also aware that my Bill is supported by 200 hon. Members on both sides of the House, including some Ministers? So will the Government give serious consideration to supporting my Bill?

Tony Blair: We will give serious consideration to it. The issue that my hon. Friend raises is a high priority for hon. Members and the Government. As he will know, for children, our target is to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 50 per cent. by 2010. By 2002, we had already reduced deaths and serious injuries by 33 per cent.—so a large number of children have been saved from death or serious injury. Sometimes when we are talking about speed humps, speed limits, speed cameras and so on, we forget that, although those things can be aggravating for the motorist from time to time, sometimes they have a real point in relation to protecting our young people and, indeed, others. So we will certainly give careful consideration to his Bill, and if we can support it, I am sure that we will.

Dolphins and Other Cetaceans Protection

Adrian Sanders: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the protection of dolphins and to prohibit pair trawling for sea bass in UK waters.
	Pair trawling for bass, in which two boats tow huge nets, causes hundreds of cetacean deaths: dolphins, porpoises and small whales. Industrial trawling for bass that is what pair trawling is is a relatively new fishery. With no quota for bass and no limit on the number of boats that can trawl UK waters at any time, the fishery has attracted boats from across Europe. At the same time, a major marketing campaign has been undertaken to create demand for the fish and increase its price.
	The sea bass dish featured in newspaper magazines, or prepared in front of the camera by the latest TV celebrity chef, may be part of a co-ordinated strategy to create a new market for a fish that, in the past, while not absent from the menus of top restaurants, was never as widely available and demanded as it is today. The side effect of such artificial demand has been witnessed on the beaches of north-west France and south-west England: hundreds of cetacean carcasses washed up on the shore.
	Various cetacean species are known to die through entanglement in fishing gear. Small cetaceans, such as harbour porpoises and common dolphins, become entangled in bottom-set gill nets. Common dolphins are known to die in towed trawl nets, which may also capture species such as white-sided dolphins and pilot whales. Larger whales, such as the minke whale, occasionally become entangled in discarded nets or in the float ropes of lobster pots, sustaining injuries or long-term entanglement that may cause death through disease or infection.
	Under the habitats directive, the UK has a responsibility to monitor incidental cetacean mortality wherever it is believed that such mortality could affect their populations and to take remedial action if a problem is discovered. Well, we have a problem. Sea bass, like the common dolphin, feed on mackerel. They chase the shoals during the season from Biscay to the Isle of Wight. Trawlers hunting bass drop their nets into the water and scoop up everything in sight. The dolphin chase the mackerel into the bottom of the trawl to feast, not noticing the change in water pressure. When they need to come up for air, they cannot. They are trapped. They suffocate and die, just as a human would if caught in such a net without an oxygen tank.
	The dolphin fights its captivity, often damaging itself on the nets in a desperate attempt to escape. The rips and marks on the bodies of washed-up carcases are evidence of the horrific final minutes of one of humankind's closest relatives. Apart from the shocking sight that greets those who come across the dead mammals that litter our shoreline, the significant cost of disposal falls on coastal local authorities.
	What we see washed up on our shores and across the channel is only the tip of the iceberg. Most of the cetaceans eventually sink to the bottom of the sea when they are thrown back by the pair trawlers. Some fishermen, recognising that the dolphin is a protected species, cut up the remains of the by-catch in the hope that it will never be discovered. However, winds and currents uncover the evidence by washing up some carcases and body parts, which can then be subjected to post mortem examination before disposal.
	There is huge mortality among common dolphin in winter fisheries each year, and although the specific fisheries causing the problem remain a matter for debate for the Government, local fishermen and conservation groups know who is to blame the sea bass pair trawlers. The only evidence of the scale of the problem currently comes from the increasing number of carcases washing up on coastlines that show evidence of trawl injuries. Some 65 per cent. of those subjected to post mortems under Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs contract were clearly by-catch victims, according to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. As a welfare organisation, the RSPCA believes that any level of cetacean by-catch carries an associated level of animal suffering that must be regarded as unacceptable.
	Recorded by-catch of cetaceans in Cornwall and Devon has risen steeply since 1970. Although some of the increase may be attributed to improved reporting, the very marked shift from a roughly even seasonal distribution before 1970 to a strong predominance of winter stranding, especially in common dolphin, demonstrates another cause. The first notable peak in dolphin strandings in the UK was recorded in 1992, when 118 dolphin carcases came ashore in Cornwall and Devon in the first three months of the year. Post mortem examinations revealed that most of the animals had died as a result of incidental capture in fisheries. The pattern of injuries on the animals led to the conclusion that they had died in pelagic fisheries.
	The first significant by-catch was found in the south-west in 1997, a date that coincides with the introduction of European Union fishing quotas for mackerel and pilchard. After 1997, fisheries were unable to fish for these types of fish, so instead swapped to fishing for sea bass. As of yesterday, 200 carcases had been found on the beaches of Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Hampshire so far this year. The figures already exceed last year's total. It has taken seven years to persuade the Government that there just might be a problem. In response, a number of proposals to prevent by-catch are being funded.
	Pingers, tiny acoustic alarms that are attached at intervals along a fixed fishing net to warn cetaceans of the net's presence, are designed to produce sound outside the normal hearing range of the target fish. Studies have shown that they can deter as a short-term measure, but we must ask whether the equipment is robust enough to survive constant pounding in a tough fishery at sea. Who will check, and how often, that the batteries are still working? Moreover, pingers have been developed only for set gill net fisheries. They will not work on mobile pelagic trawls.
	Separator grids in fishing nets are being tested. In theory, they allow dolphin that swim into the nets to escape, but without expensive video monitoring equipment and someone to watch the screen, how will anyone on board know they are working? There is another more basic problem, which is that the catch itself may escape. If the dolphin cannot escape but the fish are escaping, that is no help to the fishermen or the dolphin.
	The European Commission has prepared a draft regulation that calls for compulsory observer monitoring of fisheries with a suspected cetacean by-catch problem. Independent observers could gather information on the extent of the problem and see whether the speed of the trawl, the time of the trawl or another variable makes a difference to the level of by-catch. How many observers will be needed to monitor the increasing number of vessels engaged in that fishery, and to do so 24 hours a day, and what, if anything, can they do if cetaceans are caught?
	The problem is that the trials are taking place on only a couple of UK vessels, which represent only a small proportion of the British pair trawl fleet, which in turn is one of the smallest in Europe. They represent, perhaps, 1 per cent. of pair-trawling capacity currently at work hunting for sea bass. Even if all those initiatives prove 100 per cent. successful, thousands of cetaceans will continue to be slaughtered unnecessarily.
	Dolphin used to be a common sight around the coast of the west country, but they cannot sustain the annual carnage for much longer. The bottle-nosed dolphin has almost disappeared, and we do not want the common or the white-sided dolphin to follow it.
	There is only one way for the House to test the claims of the pair trawlers that they are not to blame for the by-catch, and that is to ban this method of fishing for sea bass. If after a year there is no reduction in the number of washed-up carcases on our beaches, we will know that the pair trawlers are not to blame, and that the trials of nets, pingers and observers are a waste of time as well.
	Time is running out, and I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Adrian Sanders, Andrew George, Mr. Paul Tyler, Matthew Taylor, Mr. Colin Breed, Mr. Anthony Steen, Richard Younger-Ross and Nick Harvey.

Dolphins and Other Cetaceans Protection

Mr. Adrian Sanders accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the protection of dolphins and to prohibit pair trawling for sea bass in UK waters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 87].

Points of Order

Norman Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At Prime Minister's questions today we reached only Question 5 on the Order Paper. Furthermore, the exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister took 14 minutes, which is almost half the allotted time. In the interests of Back Benchers, do you think that that is fair, and what steps can you take to ensure that that exchange is limited and that other Members of the House, beyond the Leader of the Opposition, have an opportunity to question the Prime Minister?

Richard Younger-Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to reply, he may not need to make a further point of order.
	Until today, I have been lucky, because Back Benchers have done well in the recent past. In fact, I think that I have managed to reach Question 12 on the Order Paper. In fairness to the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, the questions relating to immigration were highly technical, so they took up time. I am conscious of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and there will be occasions on which the exchanges between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are longer than usual, but I will not encourage that, and rather the opposite, I hope.

Richard Younger-Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may be aware that only eight Back Benchers were selected today, and that last week and the week before we reached only Question 7 or 8. There appears to be a growing trend for the Leader of the Opposition to take an ever greater proportion of the time.

Mr. Speaker: I simply say to the hon. Gentleman: look at the big picture.

Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you possibly ask the Clerks to look back a couple of decades and more, when it was quite frequent for the Leader of the Opposition to table a private notice question on a major, substantive issue? That is the way to protect the Back-Bench interest.

Mr. Speaker: Once again, the Father of the House has been able to give us some wise counsel. Perhaps that will be noticed now that it is on the record.

Christopher Chope: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you make any comment about the Prime Minister's growing practice of prefacing the answer to the first question with a statement? Does that not add unnecessarily to the whole process?

Mr. Speaker: I think that we will move on to the main business, before I get drawn into criticism of either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition.

Higher Education Bill (Programme) (No. 4)

Alan Johnson: I beg to move,
	That the programme order of 27th January in relation to the Higher Education Bill shall be further varied as follows
	(1) Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.
	(2) Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.
	(3) The proceedings shown in the first column of the Table shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.
	
		TABLE
		
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 New Clauses relating to the general duties of the relevant authority for the purposes of Part 3; new Clauses relating to exercise by the National Assembly for Wales of functions relating to student fees and student support. One hour after the commencement of proceedings on consideration. 
			 Remaining new Clauses, amendments to Clauses, new Schedules, amendments to Schedules. Five hours after the commencement of those proceedings. 
		
	
	(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration.
	The motion will allow a full debate on the parts of the Bill on which amendments have been tabled. I look forward to listening and responding to the points that are raised, and I expect that we will continue the high quality of debate that was consistently demonstrated by representatives in all parts of the Standing Committee.

Tim Collins: It is surely a matter of agreement in all parts of the House that, in allocating time, it is sensible to provide the most time to the most important and most controversial legislation. There can be no doubt about the importance of the Bill. The Prime Minister himself said that it is
	"a very major flagship reform of the Government."
	There can surely be no doubt about the controversial nature of the Bill either, given that it scraped through on Second Reading with a majority of only five. Opposition Members therefore regret that the motion will permit only four hours' debate on the most important and controversial elements of the Bill. We believe that two days should have been provided for Report and Third Reading, just as two days should have been provided for Second Reading, given that a large number of hon. Members in all parts of the House want to speak.
	As far as the Bill's consideration in Committee is concerned, I agree with the Minister. I am happy to repeat on the Floor of the House what I said at the conclusion of the Committee stage. The Minister was a model of openness and candour in his deliberations in Committee, and he provided information in advance on draft regulations, genuinely answered points that were raised in the debate and listened to views expressed from all parties. He established a precedent that it would be highly desirable for Ministers to follow on all future legislation. He is right to say that we had lengthy and high-quality debates in Committee, not least because, unusually, Government Members took a full and active part throughout. I appreciate, too, the fact that, no doubt owing to decisions made by the Minister, the Government provided some additional time in Committee.
	However, the Minister himself acknowledged in response to a parliamentary question that 25 clauses and seven schedules were not debated in Committee.

James Purnell: If so many Opposition Members want to speak in this debate, how come so few of them are sitting behind the hon. Gentleman? How come the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) is not on the Front Bench?

Tim Collins: I am sorry to have to point out to the hon. Gentleman that this is the debate on the programme motion. It had been my intention to be brief, but he is prolonging the debate. In common with many others, I want to get on to the substance of the Bill. I am more than halfway through my remarks, but if he or others wish to continue to prolong them, that is a matter for them.
	The Bill has reached Report stage with large parts entirely undebated, and, as was confirmed in the exchanges in Prime Minister's Question Time, without any significant amendments having been made. Essentially, this is the same Bill to which the House narrowly gave a Second reading. We registered objections at the time I do not intend to dwell on this point, Mr. Speaker about the balance of the Committee. In our view, all those things strengthen the case for allocating more time, not less, in the programme motion. A large number of hon. Members in other parts of the House said because I wish to be brief, I shall not quote them all at length, that they permitted Second Reading on the basis that the Bill would be altered in Committee. That did not happen, and we need plenty of time on the Floor of the House to examine why.
	That is why the Opposition are disappointed about the allocation of time, and we will therefore oppose the motion.

Phil Willis: I associate the Liberal Democrats with the comments made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and echo his remarks about the exemplary way in which Ministers dealt with the Bill in Committee. The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education and his team addressed and engaged with the core issues in an outstanding way.
	The Bill will not only change the face of higher education but set the future standard for the delivery of public services throughout the country. It is important and all of it should therefore be debated properly. The significant number of new clauses and amendments on Report are worrying, and some of the issues were not aired in Committee. The debate will last for five hours, which means that a significant number of those issues will not be voted on. Over the past few days, significant time has been spent on Opposition days and Adjournment debates in the House, and that could have been devoted to the Bill. For those reasons, we oppose the programme motion.

Graham Allen: Sometimes I read a report in Monday morning's paper of a match that I attended on Saturday and think that I went to the wrong ground, because the report is different from my experience of the event. Apart from two serious and extremely important debates in Committee, for which I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, in which variability and the new office for fair access were discussed at length, I must say, I do not say this lightly, that about 20 more issues were not given the serious consideration that we expect as parliamentarians. That may have been, in part, because of time, but I must say that it seemed on occasions to Government Members that filibusters were going on. I know that filibusters are out of order, so that could not possibly have happened, but there was certainly a degree of time-wasting, and I understand that tactic.

Chris Grayling: Does the hon. Gentleman recall which hon. Member made the longest speech in Committee?

Graham Allen: I do not, and I would be pleased if the hon. Gentleman were to inform the House, because modesty prevents my doing so. I am sure that he will concede that that speech was made during the serious debate on variability that I have already mentioned.
	If we examine the programme motion, we can see that the conduct in Committee did no one any favours. Some may pretend that proclaiming, "We did not have enough time, and we are being squeezed out" will influence thinking in the other place, but too many wise heads there realise that those who accuse others of wasting time themselves committed that offence. It is a great shame that Opposition Members chose to waste time when there are so many important issues.

Lorna Fitzsimons: My hon. Friend strongly advocates modernisation of House of Commons procedures. Is there a correlation between how the Opposition handled the Bill in Standing Committee and a wider debate about programming? The Opposition filibustered in Committee, then erroneously claimed that there was not enough time for scrutiny in order to make a point about programming.

Graham Allen: The Procedure Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), is already examining the programming and timetabling of business, and I am sure that that matter has been brought to its attention. A number of distinguished hon. Members have already given evidence to the Committee as witnesses.
	My criticism also extends to the Government, and the use of Government amendments.

Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend consider that he is talking in the only time available to discuss the devolved aspects of the Bill?

Graham Allen: My hon. Friend makes my point. Inadequate time has been allowed for proper debate of all the clauses, but he should not criticise those who point out the problem; he should criticise the process, in which we are all complicit, that does not allow a proper programme motion both in the House and in Committee, where there was insufficient time to discuss key issues.
	If we are to have proper pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills, which is a point that Opposition Members discussed in Committee, many issues that take up Government time would not require Government amendments on Report.

Phil Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Annunciator states that I have been speaking since 12.49 pm, and I would hate the record to show that I had been filibustering.

Mr. Speaker: Those of us in the Chamber know differently.

Graham Allen: The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough made many telling contributions in Committee, and I must exonerate him from the charge that I laid against certain Opposition Members of wasting valuable time when we were Upstairs.
	The question of pre-legislative scrutiny, as it applies to the programme motion, is important.

Tim Collins: The hon. Gentleman has now spoken for twice as long as anybody else on the subject of time-wasting. Since he has set out the reasons why the programme motion is not, in his phrase, "a proper programme motion", will he join Opposition Members in opposing it?

Graham Allen: I will not waste the House's time by answering that question.
	I have put on the record the annoyance of many Labour members of the Committee, who felt that there was not enough time Upstairs to debate many serious issues I could list them, because of the Opposition. For example, although Ofsted applies to every nursery, primary school and secondary school in all our constituencies, universities somehow avoid it. The issue is important because we are putting billions of pounds of public funds into universities, but there are no proper inspections such as those suffered by nurseries and other parts of our education system.
	I hope that my hon. Friends who follow me in this debate will not have to make the same points, and I hope that Opposition Members, particularly those who serve in the Whips Office, realise that Her Majesty's Government have done a gracious and generous thing by ensuring that a Bill has a start date and a finish date Upstairs. [Interruption.] A number of the main offenders are chirping from sedentary positions. Her Majesty's Government allowed the Opposition to use the time in Committee to best effect, and that they chose not to do so and continued to play ridiculous, time-wasting games reflects badly on Parliament as a whole, and particularly badly on Her Majesty's Opposition.

John Gummer: I wish to say only one thing. We used to have a Parliament in which the Opposition had of right the power to speak; now, we evidently have a Parliament in which the Government give us that right. That is what is wrong with this Government. This is contempt of Parliament, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) showed all too clearly.

Michael Fallon: I, too, oppose the motion. I am glad that aspects of the Committee went well, but of course not all of us were able to serve on it. It is extremely important that a higher education Bill should be properly debated, not least because such Bills are fairly rare—they come round only once every 10 years or so—and, by their nature, have several other issues swept up in them, which in this case have not been properly debated.
	Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, you have selected a very large number of amendments. It is inevitable not only that those amendments will not be divided on if the House wishes it, but that they will not be properly responded to by the Minister. How could he possibly deal with the catalogue of amendments in the third group? That is extremely regrettable.
	Finally, I oppose the motion because, as the Father of the House reminded us when he talked about the standards of 20 or 30 years ago, this is exactly the kind of Bill that used to be given two days on Report. We would have had a full day followed by two thirds of a day, or even a second full day, to allow all hon. Members to explore all the issues, as we should be doing. I understand that the House is taking substantive business tomorrow, so it would be perfectly possible for the Government now to agree that as so many amendments have been selected they could not have known that that would happen—the debate should continue tomorrow.

James Clappison: Having served on the Committee opposite the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), I cannot recognise his description of it. He said that only two serious debates took place, but I remember him putting the case for his constituency, in what I took to be a serious way, in many more than two debates. I listened to all his speeches, some of which were longer than others, and thought that they were all serious; I do not know which were the non-serious ones. As far as I am concerned, the Committee gave serious consideration to the Bill, but there was not enough time then, as there is not enough time now. The limited allocation of time—six hours to debate all the issues—means that it is impossible for the whole House to have its say. Many of our constituents will think that a crying shame.

Simon Thomas: I acknowledge that the Government were flexible in Committee, and I think that we had enough time to go through the Bill. On occasion, some of that time could have been better used by all Members, but that is true of all Committees. My beef with the programme motion is that we do not have enough time for proper debate on the Floor of the House.
	This is an important Bill that changes the face of higher education and affects the whole cohort of the young generation whom we are seeking to support in achieving the Government's targets, which I support in principle. It is therefore right and proper that we have enough time to debate it in detail. Specifically, the first group of amendments includes several that relate to Wales tabled in the name of the main Opposition party. If we do not debate them, we will not address on the Floor of the House—although I accept that we did in Committee—the Welsh aspects of the Bill, which are important in relation to what the National Assembly does, how that may differ from what is done in England, and the impact that that might have on English students or students from Wales going into England.
	Such a Bill should not be timetabled at all when it is debated on the Floor of the House, but we should at least have two days to consider it properly. Even at this stage, it is worth saying those words to give the Government the opportunity to listen to them and perhaps even think about them.

Alan Johnson: I want briefly to respond to a couple of the points that hon. Members raised. I thank Opposition Members for their kind and generous remarks. Their comments reflect the spirit in which they approached the Committee, on which it was a pleasure to serve.
	Let me say a few words about the Committee. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said, correctly, that we did not reach 25 of the clauses. However, the Bill is quite short, with only 50 clauses. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) harked back to a previous time—I am not sure how long ago—but in my experience, and from my experience of watching Parliament under the previous Government, it is not unusual to spend this amount of time on a 50-clause Bill. As regards the clauses that we did reach in Committee, the debates on fees provision, which lasted for seven sittings, or a total of 11 hours, principally concerned the big issue of fixed fees versus variable fees. The debate on the office for fair access, which is extremely important, particularly to Conservative Members, and very controversial, lasted for a further three sittings.
	Of the clauses that were not debated, 10 covered technical, interpretive and commencement provisions. Amendments were not tabled to several other clauses, so it is not surprising that we did not debate them. The debates were wide-ranging, and those on a number of clauses—notably fees, as I said—spanned a few sittings. If I remember rightly, the Opposition wanted 16 sittings, and we just about achieved that.
	As for today's debate, I was surprised that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)—who should now be renamed Phil O'Buster—remarked on the absence of amendments passed in Committee; indeed, the leader of his party raised the same point in Prime Minister's questions. I remind Liberal Democrat Members that one of their amendments was accepted in Committee, to great rejoicing throughout the land—it added to the gaiety of the nation—and that a Government amendment was also passed.
	We have put the right emphasis on issues relating to fees and student support. Although there is a large number of amendments, many are consequential and relatively few deal with substantive proposals. That justifies the time that we have allocated in the programme motion, which I hope that the House will support.

Question put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 354, Noes 206.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Orders of the Day

Higher Education Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	 — 
	General Duties of the Director

(1) The Director must perform his functions under this Part in such a way as to ensure full access to higher education based upon academic ability and potential.
	(2) In performing his functions under this Part the Director shall also have regard to—
	(a) the desirability of promoting equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education,
	(b) the requirement to maintain the independence of the procedures for the admission of students of individual institutions, and
	(c) the desirability of securing that his powers are exercised in such a way as to impose the minimum necessary burdens of cost and compliance with regulation on institutions.'.—[Chris Grayling.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Chris Grayling: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 2 General duties of the relevant authority in relation to Wales
	(1) The relevant authority in relation to Wales must perform his functions under this Part in such a way as to ensure full access to higher education based upon academic ability and potential.
	(2) In performing his functions under this Part the relevant authority in relation to Wales shall also have regard to—
	(a) the desirability of promoting equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education,
	(b) the requirement to maintain the independence of the procedures for the admission of students of individual institutions,
	(c) any guidance given to it by the Assembly, and
	(d) the desirability of securing that his powers are exercised in such a way as to impose the minimum necessary burdens of cost and compliance with regulation on institutions.'.
	Amendment No. 1, in page 14, line 6, leave out Clause 30.
	Amendment No. 2, in clause 48, page 22, line 13, leave out 30(1)' and insert
	[general duties of the Director]'.
	Amendment No. 3, in page 22, line 44, leave out 30(2)' and insert
	[general duties of the relevant authority in relation to Wales]'.
	Amendment No. 99, in schedule 5, page 31, line 33, at end insert—
	'(2A) In any report under sub-paragraph (1) the Director shall include an assessment of the factors which most discourage any particular class of person from seeking access to higher education, in particular factors related to income.'.
	Amendment No. 100, in page 31, line 33, at end insert—
	'(2A) Any report by the Director may include recommendations for public policy.'.
	I rise to speak to new clause 1 and the other consequential new clause and amendments, tabled in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and me. Four years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer began a process of Government interference in our universities that will, if the Bill goes through, establish the mechanism for the Government to dictate to them how they should select students. We all remember the case of Laura Spence, the applicant from the north-east who was turned down by Oxford university and subsequently admitted to Harvard. For some reason—and with what seemed like precious little knowledge of the detail of the case—the Chancellor thought that it was his job to come to Laura Spence's defence.
	I have been looking back at the coverage of the case, and the events, and their consequences for our debate are clear. A report in The Times of 26 May 2000 stated:
	"Gordon Brown embroiled the Government in a class war with Oxford University yesterday by attacking its "old school tie" interviewing system and the "absolute scandal" of the rejection of a comprehensive schoolgirl.
	The Chancellor urged Britain's older universities to open their doors to "people from all backgrounds" after Laura Spence failed to secure a place to read medicine at Magdalen College. She has since won a Harvard scholarship.
	Mr. Brown spoke with the full backing of Tony Blair . . . But he was promptly criticised by the university, whose Vice-Chancellor, Dr Colin Lucas, accused him of speaking without knowing the facts behind the headlines."
	That is not entirely a surprise. The real message in that story was in the last paragraph, which stated:
	"Last night the row was escalating as government sources made plain that universities could face sanctions if they fail to take more state pupils. 'These people have got to put their house in order', a senior government source said. Oxford and Cambridge have already suffered a cut of £11 million over ten years in the money previously allocated for college tuition fees. Officials say there is plenty of scope to impose further funding conditions."
	Further funding conditions are precisely what are on the table today. They are forcing those people, in the eyes of the Government, to put their house in order. Our new clause and the related amendments seek to challenge that intervention, and to ensure that unwarranted political interference by the Government cannot happen.

James Purnell: In answer to a question that I asked in the debate on the programme motion, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said that there were hordes of Conservatives waiting for the end of that debate so that they could speak in this one. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why there are only three Conservative Back Benchers supporting him now, given the earlier claim that there was massive interest on the Conservative Benches in this important Bill?

Chris Grayling: I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he will find that much of the interest in speaking today is on his own Benches, where large numbers of people are only too keen to speak against the Government's ill-thought-out approach to higher education. The sad thing is that all too few of them will have the opportunity to do so—if, indeed, they have not already been cowed into submission by the intense efforts of the Government Whips Office.
	It has been noticeable in recent weeks that some supporters of the Prime Minister have, perhaps with his retirement in mind, started to talk about "Blairism" as a political philosophy, although I am not sure whether that is a contradiction in terms. This measure is not about Blairism; it is about Brownism, and it is a sign of things to come if the country should ever be unfortunate enough to see the Chancellor move house from No. 11 to No. 10. The fact that the measure is before the House today is also a sign of just how weak the Prime Minister has become within his own party, and just how strong the Chancellor has become.
	When I challenged the Prime Minister on this issue a year ago, he disowned his Government's own policy. I said to him:
	"There are increasing reports of pupils of high ability and achievement being turned down by universities because of their social background. How would the Prime Minister justify that to the people who are losing out?"
	The Prime Minister's response was:
	"The simple point is that I would not. If universities are doing that, they are wrong. What is more, people should go to university based on their merit, whatever their class or background. That is what should happen." [Official Report, 26 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 256—7.]
	The purpose of new clause 1 is to ensure that it does happen, and if the Government are so enthusiastic for it to happen and if Ministers are so keen on it happening, I suggest that we stop the debate now so that they can accept new clause 1 and we can move on. Would they like to do that? [Laughter.] No, I thought not.
	New clause 1 would write into the Bill the simple principle that the access regulator should be mindful of academic achievement and potential, and of that alone. That is where the Conservatives stand on this issue. Only those two factors should be taken into account when deciding who should go to university. The admissions system should not become a system for social engineering.

Kali Mountford: Has the hon. Gentleman had time, since the Bill was in Committee, to consider what he means by "potential"? Can he now give the House a better explanation of what he means by that term, and of what his objection is to fair access, which is something else that he could not get to grips with in Committee?

Chris Grayling: I suspect that the difference between the hon. Lady and me is that, as a politician, I do not think that it is my job to define "potential". I would rather leave it to the professionals in the universities to decide which young people have the potential to succeed. They do not need politicians to step in and do their job for them.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is something wrong with a system in which, over the last 50 years, no more than 15 per cent. of people from C5 backgrounds have gone into higher education? Is he saying that the vast majority of such people—of whom I represent many—do not have potential?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady makes an important point, but she should be looking elsewhere in the education system to deal with those very real issues. It is not a solution to gerrymander the higher education entrance system.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Speaking as someone who was a professional lecturer for six years in the kind of institute that encouraged wider access, may I emphasise to the hon. Gentleman the unseen potential of people who come to higher education through non-traditional pathways? It is not a desirability but a necessity to ensure that such people have equal access to all higher education institutions, because they outperform people who come through with more traditional grade scores.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. He talks about his own experience in higher education and the role that he and his colleagues clearly played in selecting students with academic potential. It is the job of his colleagues who are still in the profession to take those decisions; it is not for politicians to impose those solutions on them.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Grayling: No, I want to make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me. The point is that it is exactly that principle that the Government are seeking to destroy today, and we want to prevent that from happening through our new clauses and amendments.
	The proposal to introduce the access regulator represents all that is wrong with this Government. University vice-chancellors have told us that they hope that the regulator will prove to be a paper tiger, but they should have listened to the Minister when he spoke in a debate on the subject in Westminster Hall earlier this year. He said that
	"this is a regulator with teeth." [Official Report, Westminster Hall, 6 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 32WH.]
	Our goal this afternoon is to draw those teeth, and to establish the principle, which should be inalienable, that these matters should be outside the control and involvement of politicians.
	Let us be clear: we believe that entry to university should be based on academic achievement and potential and on nothing else. It is not for politicians to interfere in this.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman may recall from Committee that my position is somewhere between his and the Government's on this matter. There is a serious point to be made: the university funding system is already subject to an element of political interference. The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, for example, already sets a threshold for the number of applicants who must come from the 100 most deprived communities in Wales. Would the new clause weaken existing arrangements, or does the hon. Gentleman think that he is merely tackling the office for fair access? I am a little concerned that he may weaken efforts already being made in relation to access to higher education.

Chris Grayling: I see no reason why the new clause would have that effect. Nor do I believe that our universities would be enhanced by another layer of bureaucracy, which would make it more difficult for them to do the job that many of them are already doing.
	The important point at the heart of this debate is that there is a need to create opportunity within our education system for those who are let down by it. There was no dispute in Committee about that, and there is no disagreement that there are young people who do not achieve what they could under our current education system. There are young people with the potential to go to university, who, for family or other reasons, such as the social environment in which they are brought up, do not end up doing so. That is wrong. There is agreement on both sides of the House about that.
	In Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who is sadly not in his place at the moment, made an impassioned and important speech and quite a long one about the situation in his constituency, where anyone who stays on in education after the age of 16 is regarded, in his words, as weird. Clearly, that is wrong. I did not disagree with his analysis of the situation in his constituency, nor with the fact that it needs to be addressed, but I fundamentally disagree with him about the solution. The problem that the access regulator is being appointed to tackle is deep-rooted in our schools, and it is there that the change must come. That solution will not be found by gerrymandering the university admissions system, or by requiring university admissions tutors to follow anything other than their natural instincts and expertise in judging academic achievement and potential.

Jonathan R Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman also recall that we heard in Committee of examples of universities and schools working together in communities, such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), to expose universities to young people who had no previous experience of them? The regulator will oversee exactly that type of access extension.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and anticipates the next section of my speech.
	The frustrating irony of the debate about the access regulator is that good work is already going on in the university sector to try to attract students from non-traditional backgrounds.
	In Committee, numerous Labour Members praised the efforts of their local universities in this regard. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who is not in her place today, said:
	"Cambridge University has long been generous in providing bursaries to students from low-income backgrounds"
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, North said:
	"we need . . . vice-chancellors to become far more a part of the education family". [Official Report, Standing Committee H, 4 March 2004; c.464—71.]
	But he went on to praise the work done by his two local universities, Nottingham university and Nottingham Trent university, in seeking to extend opportunities for 14 to 16-year-olds.

Jonathan R Shaw: It is right that we gave examples of good practice in Committee, but we also said that it was not uniform, it was not across the piece, and that some universities were doing very well, and others were not. We want all universities to perform to their best in terms of widening access and reaching out into communities to young people who would not have thought about attending university. That is what the regulator will do: it is about spreading good practice.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman must understand that the fundamental difference between us is that we do not believe that we should pass laws to do that. One does not legislate best practice; one encourages it. The flaw in this measure is the belief that passing a law is the right way to deal with a genuine problem. That is the difference between Conservative and Labour Members.

Kali Mountford: I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises the hard work going on in junior and primary schools as well as in secondary schools and universities. Alongside that good work, does he not recognise that there is a problem with people following their natural instincts, to use his words? Is not the problem that some people's natural instincts may not be benign, and some people's natural instincts may need some encouragement in a more generous direction?

Chris Grayling: If the hon. Lady is right, and if the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) is correct that there are potential students out there who will out-perform in higher education, by definition, those institutions that are good at recruiting them will rocket up the academic ladder, and others will realise that they are missing out. Surely best practice is best developed in that way, rather than through clumsy bureaucratic laws from the centre.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Grayling: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make some progress. I do not want to take up the whole debate with my contribution.
	The problem is that when the Government feel that something is not right, they rush to pass a law. Although the natural instincts of Labour Members to nationalise everything have long been curbed, those instincts are still to look to interfere in every aspect of our lives. When there is something with which they do not agree, passing a law is their only solution. The introduction of an access regulator, whose job is to ensure that universities are pressurised into changing the way that they shape their future intakes, is based too much on class prejudice and not enough on academic good practice. We do better if we empower people to take those decisions themselves, rather than trying to be prescriptive from the centre.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that something must be done to address those failing schools and communities where education is an alien concept [Interruption.] He has just returned to the Chamber, and he missed my remarks referring to his speech. I very much agreed with his diagnosis of the problem in his constituency. My point is that that problem simply should not exist in a modern society in 2004. It behoves all of us as politicians to seek ways to address it. We differ not on the aspiration but on the solution. Fundamentally, we do not believe that passing laws is the right way to do it. Nor do we believe that creating potentially draconian regimes for the university sector is the right way to do it.

Several hon. Members: rose

Chris Grayling: I am going to conclude my remarks, as I want to allow other Members the chance to speak.
	The Government have sought to assure us that they have no intention whatever of trying to become involved in admissions. The measure, they tell us, is all about applications, not admissions. They just want universities, they tell us, to cast their net wider. The problem is simple: we do not believe them. They have form in this area. They know that they have already gone back on a clear manifesto pledge on tuition fees, to which we will no doubt return later this afternoon.
	When the Government tell us that the access regulator will have a light touch and confine his interest to a loose set of guidance in relation to the application process, I do not believe them. Do we honestly believe that two or three years down the road, if by some unhappy accident they are still in office and their goals are not being met by the higher education sector, they will stand aside if the changes that they want have not happened? No one in the higher education sector should be under any illusion about that. When the Secretary of State talks about substantial financial penalties £500,000 fines for universities that do not conform that is a threat to be taken seriously. In time, those threats will become a harsh reality.
	There is a simple way of removing this threat. The new clause would limit the ability of the regulator to impose a social engineering agenda on our universities. It would ensure that our universities cannot be forced to admit students on the basis of any factors other than academic achievement and potential. The Prime Minister had it right a year ago when he said that anything else would be wrong. He was right then, this new clause is right now, and I commend it to the House.

David Rendel: I shall not detain the House, because I am sure we all want to proceed to the next group of new clauses and amendments.
	The Liberal Democrats will support the new clause, because, as we have said from the outset, we consider the whole system of targets to be nonsense. The idea that precisely 50 per cent. of young people no more, no less should go to university is absurd. The target will probably be achieved quite easily anyway; it has already been achieved in Scotland, and the chances are that it will be achieved in England in the near future regardless of whether the Government take any action. What we should be doing is deciding how many university places we ought to be providing, and for whom they ought to be provided. We have long believed that places should be provided for all who have the ability, potential and qualifications to make proper use of university courses.
	We are particularly happy with new clause 1 because the Conservatives, who in Committee tabled an equivalent amendment proposing the removal of the clause in the Bill that insists on fairness, have now included subsection (2) in the new clause. It provides that the system of choosing between applicants must be fair and non-discriminatory. That addition makes all the difference: it enables us to support the new clause.
	While we are thinking about fairness, we should bear in mind that A-levels are not the only measure of ability and potential. I was somewhat surprised, but nevertheless delighted, to find in Committee that the Conservatives held that view as well. There had been some concern about the issue over the past year. Some independent schools had seemed to think that A-levels were the only important measure of ability, and that those with the right A-levels should be chosen on those grounds alone. That, of course, has become impossible in the case of our most prestigious universities: so many applicants are achieving three or four A grades that it is impossible to choose between them purely on that basis.

Geraint Davies: While we are discussing the central issue of enforcing fairness, may I make a point about Oxford university? I should mention that I went there from a state school. Oxford accepts a proportion of applicants from state schools, but it is also true that more people from state schools will end up with better degrees the corollary being that those from the private sector will end up with worse degrees. Does that not imply that something is going badly wrong at the margin, and that there should be more factoring in of social backgrounds? That is the job of the regulator, and it should be enforced.

David Rendel: I do not think that those from state schools necessarily get better degrees. What is certainly true is that those from state schools who have lower A-level grades tend to do at least as well as those from independent schools who have higher grades. I do not think that that is quite the point that the hon. Gentleman was making, but it is my reason for thinking that A-level grades should not represent the only way of choosing between applicants. If we do not have other mechanisms, our most prestigious universities will not have the opportunity to admit applicants with great ability and potential who come from state schools and whose A-level grades may not be as good as those of others in their age group.

Barry Sheerman: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misinterpreted my hon. Friend's point. The other side of the picture is that when people who have been carefully nurtured and groomed, and on whom an enormous amount of money has been spent in the private system who have been glossed up reach university, the glossing up does not persist. It gets them into university because they look good at their interviews and have plenty of self-assurance and yes, they have achieved three As at A-level but when confronted with the rigours of a university degree course, they do not perform as well as people from state schools with similar qualifications.

David Rendel: I suspect that, in fact, we are all misunderstanding each other. I think that what I was saying is exactly what the hon. Gentleman has just said. Those from state schools will not necessarily get better degrees than those from independent schools, but those from state schools with lower A-level grades tend to end up with the same degrees as those from independent schools with higher grades.

James Clappison: Will the hon. Gentleman join me in commending to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) the Chairman of the Select Committee and to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) a report prepared for the Higher Education Funding Council? It concerns the effects of schooling on higher education achievement, and concludes that the difference in the degree performances of students with the same A-level scores from independent schools and state schools is very small indeed at the most selective and highly academic universities such as Oxford and Cambridge.

David Rendel: I think that we are all saying much the same thing, and that I should now make some progress.
	At present, independent schools are selling themselves largely on their ability to produce better A-level grades than state schools for pupils with the same ability. Universities should therefore take the opportunity of choosing state school applicants with lower grades, rather than those from independent schools; but the choice must be made on the basis of a number of criteria. Past exam success clearly makes a difference, and it is one of the measures that universities can use fairly not just in respect of A-levels, but in respect of earlier exams. Current tests of potential along the lines of the American SATS are a possible method of differentiation. The application form itself may give universities a hint, and pupils could perhaps send examples of written work to show what they had achieved in the past. Interviews are another possibility, as are teachers' assessments. If teachers are at all fair in their assessments, the best way of judging the ability and potential of young people may be what is said by those who have known them best at school.
	New clause 1 would, I hope, produce a fairer way of choosing university students than the methods currently used in some universities. It is only fair to add, however, that a certain level of resources would have to be invested. It is quickest and simplest for universities to choose between applicants on the basis of A-level grades; if these more complex and subtle, but fairer, methods are adopted, universities must put in more money than they do at present.
	New clause 2 would remove from the Welsh Assembly some of its rights to determine how university admissions are handled. That clearly conflicts with the whole principle of devolution to the Assembly. I should like the maximum number of powers to be devolved, and I believe that these powers should be included.

Chris Grayling: As the hon. Gentleman will know, new clause 2 is effectively consequential on new clause 1. Is he saying that he supports the principle that universities should not be subject to political interference in England, but does not apply that principle to Wales?

David Rendel: No, I am not suggesting that Welsh universities should not have a fair choice of applicants. What I am saying is that it should be up to the Assembly to determine how it will put pressure on universities to employ a fair and sensible way of discriminating between applicants. We in this Parliament should not make that decision.
	I am not sure whether anyone will speak to amendments Nos. 99 and 100. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who tabled them, did not seem to want to speak a moment ago. In case he does speak, however, let me say that we consider the amendments unobjectionable but probably superfluous. I suspect that OFFA would work more or less in that way in any event. We see no great need for the amendments, but we have no great objection to them.

Graham Allen: New clauses 1 and 2 are important, because they give the House the chance to look very seriously at OFFA. In this context, I must allude to some remarks that I made earlier about Ofsted. Unfortunately, my new clause, which would have made OFFA into a body more like Ofsted, did not get the attention of the Speaker, but new clauses 1 and 2 bring to the House's attention the strength of OFFA. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) made some telling points when he spoke earlier, but I disagree with him on the strength of OFFA. If we are to intervene effectively in what is an education market whether we like it or not, whether we would like to reshape it or not, and whether it is imperfect or not, we need the tools to do so. We had a good debate on how people can assess the market and adjust it for the benefit of all participants. OFFA is one of the instruments that could be used to make an imperfect market a little more perfect.

Patrick Hall: My hon. Friend will know that the use of the word "market" has heavy political and social implications, especially for Labour Members. Although he accepts that there is now a market in higher education, does he agree that neither the current situation nor that proposed in the Bill will by any means produce a free market? The market is extremely restricted and contained, so that term must be used with the caveat that we do not, and will not, have a free market.

Graham Allen: The pretence that there has ever been a wholly free market—which is a theoretical concept—is an offence to logic, but it is equally an offence to logic to pretend that we do not currently have a highly distorted market. The problem is that if we want to clean it up and to the use the language of the market, people unfortunately bring to the discussion a lot of emotional baggage about what that means.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell kindly alluded to my remarks in Committee on how a distorted market affects my constituency. Nottingham, North sends the fewest young people to university of any constituency in the United Kingdom. The people in Nottingham, North are not congenitally thicker than people elsewhere, but their life chances are perverted at an early stage because the market of brains, ability and talent is not allowed to work. The way to solve that is not to preserve the current system in aspic, but to take on the market, make sure that it works effectively and remove as many of its imperfections as possible.
	One tool that we can bring to bear on that process is OFFA. Unlike the hon. Member for Epson and Ewell—on occasion I have disagreed with Ministers, too, on this—I feel that OFFA is not the tiger that we need, but something of a pussycat.

Jonathan R Shaw: If we all agree that admissions are the sole responsibility of the institution, what additional powers does my hon. Friend advocate that OFFA should have?

Graham Allen: I shall gladly explain my request, but my hon. Friend will be bored because he heard it all in Committee. We have heard from Opposition Members, whose view is honest and sincere, that we need a light touch, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education has taken that further by saying that we should have a light touch but not a soft touch. However, I think that we need a slightly firmer hand on this particular tiller. Statistics tell us that over the past 40 years, working-class kids' chances of getting to university have not improved one jot. There are still only 20 per cent. of working-class kids, and fewer in my constituency, who make it to university. I do not want to rush into legislation, to use the term of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, but concluding a 40-year experiment is not rushing. The need to ensure that the talent that is out there is allowed to breathe, and that talented young people realise their full potential, is long overdue. People whom we represent feel that it is long overdue, as does our party.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend knows of my admiration for what he is doing in Nottingham, North to put right what has been wrong for far too long in terms of opportunities for children. However, does he agree that in the period since 1997, we have had the right strategy of intervening as early as we can, with Sure Start, free nursery places, and massive investment in primary, junior and secondary schools and in education maintenance allowances? All of us will agree that in one sense, 18 is too late. We must make the intervention earlier.

Graham Allen: My hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench repeat over and over, rightly, that the subsidy for education, which everyone in this country should be proud of, is far higher at the latter end of education than at the earliest moment. I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee for repeatedly renewing calls on Sure Start, on all our schemes to improve emotional intelligence and social behaviour before school and on the effort to bring literacy and numeracy into play at primary school. When those measures were introduced, none of them found much favour from Opposition Members, but Ministers pushed them through with the support of my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, and they are starting to make a real difference.
	I repeat that the life chances of young people in my constituency and in the constituencies of many colleagues are not falsified at the age of 18; the dice are loaded from birth, and sometimes before. We need to examine a much wider picture and ensure that the money goes in at the earliest possible opportunity. If youngsters are allowed to flourish prior to going to school—we have all read primary school Ofsted reports from difficult parts of our constituency—they will benefit massively from the education on offer. That is how we must look at this particular question, and we must ensure that the process is pursued right up to the age of 18, through an OFFA with teeth.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Given how my hon. Friend described his constituency and his constituents, does he think that they would agree with the wording of new clause 1, which describes equality of opportunity as desirable? Would he choose a stronger form of words?

Graham Allen: I would choose far stronger words, and I did so in Committee. I still hope that the Government might consider my proposal. OFFA is essentially a reactive body. If we look at the way in which it was created through the consultative paper, and the way in which we talked about it in Committee, we see that OFFA is reactive to whatever universities propose in their access plans. However, I want OFFA to make proposals, to be innovative and to tackle some of the problems and their causes, just as we would expect any other body related to educational institutions to do. If Ofsted goes into one of my local primary schools, it comes out and produces not just a bland report on achievement but a sharp report on what is needed in that school, and on how to support teachers and end the problems that have caused under-attainment. Similarly, I want action-oriented proposals from OFFA.
	I know that we have had to compromise to get parts of the Bill through, but we must return to that matter at an appropriate point. That is why one of my amendments in Committee referred directly to a proposal of the Chairman of the Education Committee, which has done such superb work in this field. Although it was able to undertake only brief, if comprehensive, pre-legislative scrutiny of the provisions, one of its proposals was that we review the operation of OFFA and see whether we can take it further and give it more teeth, so that we can assess how the problems are being tackled, rather than just providing a snapshot of those problems. I hope that the Minister will take up that idea informally, even if it is not passed as an amendment to the Bill.

Phil Willis: I do not think that anybody in the House would disagree with the premise that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward—that generations of young people in many constituencies have been denied access to higher education as a result of low expectation, and often as a result of low standards in local education authorities and schools. We both start from that point. What worries me about his language is the idea that, in a constituency such as mine, where about 70 per cent. of young people enter some form of higher education, those very young people should be penalised as a result of their efforts and the fact that many of them have been born into lower or middle-class families. Does he agree that it should not be a question of either/or? We are not seeking to replace certain groups of students with others. That is what worries us about the whole issue of social engineering within this framework.

Graham Allen: Of course it is not a question of either/or, but let us be absolutely clear about this: social engineering is already happening, and we need to recognise it. There is already a market, and we need to recognise that. If we think that the current market is imperfect, which it is, and if we agree that the current social imbalance, which certainly exists, has not arrived by accident and is wrong, we need to do something about those things. The pertinence to the new clause is that OFFA potentially gives us a way to strengthen the teeth that will allow talent to flourish—not to give anybody an easy ride, not to give anybody access to university who does not have the qualifications, but to ensure that the abilities that are out there are allowed to flourish. It is a way of freeing up the abilities, not forcing people into university. In many ways, the hon. Gentleman is setting up a straw man, because the people who would like that the least would probably be those who were forced into a university when they knew perfectly well that they were not qualified. I accept that he was not intending to say that.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I accept the genuine interest and expertise of the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesperson on this issue, but does my hon. Friend share my concern that, over the past 40 years, social engineering has kept able, bona fide candidates out of higher education, as is evidenced by the fact that for 40 years only 20 per cent. of people from lower socio-economic backgrounds entered higher education?

Graham Allen: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Labour Members should stop being defensive about the idea that intervention takes place in a market. That is exactly what this party is about, if we are about anything. The Conservatives practised intervention for decade after decade to the benefit of the people whom they represent. I do not quibble with them for doing that, but Labour Members must accept that, as John Smith used to say repeatedly, a market is a good servant but a bad master. By using methods such as those that OFFA will use, we can intervene to ensure that the market is properly regulated so that talent is allowed to flourish.
	I return briefly to the point that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made. We do of course need to take a comprehensive view of the whole issue. For that reason, I implore my hon. Friends, whatever their views on particular aspects of variability, to vote with the Government tonight. If things do not go as I hope that they will, we might lose the other part of this vital package. The key is to ensure that, now that we have a higher education system in which youngsters can flourish, we allow them to get there.
	The biggest problem faced by young people is not the prospect of paying back a fiver a week when they are on £18,000, or —25 a week when they are on £30,000, as a graduate; the biggest obstacle to kids in my patch, and in the constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House, is their fear that if they go to university with no money in their pocket, they will be unable to keep body and soul together. I have already written to the eight secondary head teachers in my constituency to tell them that, if the Bill is passed, they should spread the good news at their assemblies and other places and say, "You can go to university and we will pay you £3,000 to do it, because that is available"

Phil Willis: And charge them.

Graham Allen: And they will not be charged. The hon. Gentleman repeats that assertion over and again. It needs to be refuted, even if it is only made from a sedentary position.

Phil Willis: rose

Graham Allen: I must answer the hon. Gentleman's sedentary point, and then I may give way to his standing point.
	The scare that is put about that poor students, poor families, rich students or rich families will have to pay back under this scheme, is nonsense. It will be graduates earning a wage earning £18,000—who will start to pay back at £5 a week, and those earning £30,000 will pay back £25 a week. What the hon. Gentleman does he does it so often that I begin to doubt that he is doing it inadvertently is frighten the very youngsters in my constituency whom I want to grasp this opportunity. It is an easy point; it is an easy misrepresentation. This morning I met a number of people who have lobbied us in the House. I corrected them, and they were amazed because they had swallowed the propaganda and thought this was a great debt burden rather than a very modest repayment that will be made only once graduates earn sufficient repay.

Phil Willis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that poorer students currently pay no fees, so when they leave university they have to pay back their maintenance loan, whereas under the new system they will get a £3,000 grant, including the bursary, as they go into university, but they will have a £3,000 tuition fee to repay at the end? So they will actually get a grant of £3,000 and then have to pay back £3,000 in fees. How on earth is that an advantage?

Graham Allen: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on almost every particular. I wish that I could take more time to refute the arguments that will be made in the later debate. I will be present in the later debate to do that, as I did repeatedly in Committee. Not every youngster will pay a £3,000 fee [Interruption.] I am sorry, not every university will charge

Jon Owen Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your protection. How can you help Members who represent Wales in the House, who, it is now clear, will have no opportunity to debate the important issues, which are currently non-devolved, about how the Bill affects Wales? In its ignorance or with its disinterest, the House is about to legislate on Wales without allowing any Member from Wales to speak on that issue. Can you do anything to protect our interests?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman is raising, but the House has decided the programme motion that we are now working under, and as far as I am concerned in the Chair I have no control over that.

Graham Allen: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) makes a strong point, and all that I can say to him is that this matter was covered extensively in Committee. I know that is of little consolation to him

Paul Farrelly: I have enjoyed listening at great length to my hon. Friend. Given the length of his contribution and in recognition of his efforts, OFFA should perhaps be renamed the Allen key to improve access.

Graham Allen: I believe that several colleagues wish to speak and I shall bring my remarks to a close. I simply emphasise that we are creating an instrument for intervention in a highly imperfect market, and we should give it the necessary teeth. Unfortunately, this will not be the opportunity to do that, but I hope that perhaps under the auspices of the Select Committee we shall revisit this matter and ensure that OFFA is a regulatory body worthy of the name.

Michael Fallon: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has just taken a third of the entire debate. I shall certainly be briefer, not least to try to allow some Welsh Members into the debate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) described amendment No. 1 as consequential. It may be, but I think that it also reflects amendment No. 268, which he tabled in Committee, in that it removes from the Bill the clause that allows the Secretary of State to give guidance to the regulator. That is the issue that most concerns me, because it allows the Secretary of State to give the regulator guidance, so the regulator will not be independent of the Secretary of State or of Government.
	One can make a case, when dealing with rail, water or other issues, for the regulator to be directed or guided by the Secretary of State or the politicians of the day, but higher education is not the same as energy, water or railways. On the contrary, universities—even if Labour would wish it otherwise—are not public institutions. They are private institutions, and what is studied at universities and those who are admitted to them should, in the final resort, be matters for universities themselves. That is the principle of academic freedom, which I have yet to hear addressed, on Second Reading or today.

Peter Bradley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Fallon: No, I have very little time.
	The Minister was brutal on that point in Committee. When he answered the debate on amendment No. 268, he said that the Government wanted the powers because
	"we want to direct the regulator." [Official Report, Standing Committee H, 4 March 2004; c. 523.]
	He made no bones about it: he wants the powers so that the Secretary of State can direct the regulator.
	We have heard today Labour Members say—as they are entitled to do—that they want a regulator with teeth. Indeed, that was the gist of the 20-minute speech by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North. That is fine, but the Bill will mean that we will have a regulator with the Government's teeth. It is wholly wrong of the Government to interfere in the operation of the regulator.
	I shall lay my cards on the table and confess that I do not think that we need a regulator. Better practice could be spread in different ways, and there is no case for a regulator. However, if there is to be one, it should be independent of the Government and of the Secretary of State. It should carry out its duties, subject—of course—to the law and perhaps to review by the courts, but free from political interference.

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) rightly said that we do not want an either/or situation: we want to promote the opportunities for young people from working-class backgrounds to fulfil their potential and gain access to higher education institutes. We have heard a lot of scaremongering from the Conservatives about what OFFA will do, but the idea that it will involve social engineering is ridiculous—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) greets that with incredulity. OFFA will, with a light touch, spread good practice to ensure that institutions reach out to communities that are less well represented in higher education. OFFA will not be a punitive weapon that the Secretary of State can use, and that suggestion was clearly rebutted in Committee—and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) knows it. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) nods, but we remember the language that he used. He said that OFFA would be used if the Secretary of State took offence at an institution and that he could use OFFA in a vendetta against it.
	The Opposition said that OFFA would be the Secretary of State's plaything, but that is ridiculous. Universities UK has been clear about the powers that OFFA will have, especially on the plan that will allow universities to charge fees of £3,000. If the plan is altered, it will be on the say-so of the institutions, not OFFA. It is important that OFFA is not involved in admissions, but the Conservatives want people to think that it will be. The universities know that OFFA will not be involved in admissions, the Labour party knows that and so do the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, the Tories know it, but they choose not to articulate it because it does not suit their opportunism. They constantly use emotive words, talking about social engineering, to create a pernicious impression.

Ian Taylor: I support the principles in the Bill, which is why I will not vote against it tonight, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the provisions on OFFA are a cause for concern? The best universities want to try to broaden access: the problem is that only a quarter of 18-year-old A-level entrants get two decent A-levels. We have to find other ways, but that is not what OFFA will be set up to do.

Jonathan R Shaw: One in four youngsters from working-class backgrounds who get good GCSEs do not go on to higher education institutions. Perhaps if those institutions reached out, they might get on the radar of those youngsters. We will pile more money into universities and it is reasonable for a light-touch regulator to try to ensure that they reach out. Some of our universities do a fantastic job, while others do not do such a good job. If universities want to raise their fees, they will have to reach out as the best do.

Simon Thomas: If OFFA were to be established, would any student of adequate or good financial means from a middle-class background find it difficult to go to university? I find it hard to conceive that that would ever be the case. It is also pertinent that while universities are independent, they rely heavily on public funding. Therefore, we have the right to ask something in return for that funding.

Jonathan R Shaw: I agree. The judgment that we have to make is the extent of that intervention. The proposals in the Bill are reasonable. A series of amendments in Committee have assured Universities UK that OFFA will be light touch. It will also spread good practice and, together with other measures not least at nursery level— it will improve access for young people

James Clappison: In the unfortunately short time left, I shall be brief. I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends and I also support in their entirety the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). He was right to draw attention to the lack of independence of OFFA. It will be the creature of the Secretary of State and will act under his strict statutory guidance. Hon. Members should ask how OFFA will work under that guidance, because there will be a clear link between admissions and finance, and that is very disturbing.
	My hon. Friend was right to refer to the £500,000 fine that can be imposed on universities, but whether universities are allowed to impose a variable fee will depend on the approval of OFFA. Whether they get that approval will depend on whether they carry out the activities required under the access agreement. The key point of how they will be judged on whether they are achieving the targets on outreach will be admissions—[Interruption.] Whoever said "No" should read the statutory guidance, which sets it out in black and white.

Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have two minutes before the guillotine falls, and clearly the House would like to hear the Minister's response to the debate. Have you received any representations from the Government that they might be minded to extend the guillotine under the programme motion? We would be happy to support such an extension.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Such things are not possible at this stage of our proceedings and would simply take more time from the debate.

James Clappison: For the reasons that I outlined, OFFA is inconsistent with admissions based on merit. That will create a sense of injustice for many individuals, and might well lead to the lowering of standards in universities. It could result in a large number of this country's students going to universities in Germany—we have heard about that today—and perhaps the United States because they cannot obtain a place at a university in this country. They will be joined by those for whom a vast burden of debt will create a disincentive. I shall finish to allow the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) the chance to make his point on Wales, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Peter Bradley: I have been to Wales.
	I am delighted that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) put on the record the Tory view that democracy is an unhappy accident. It is no doubt also his view that broadening access to university will happen only through an unhappy accident. He says that there is a problem with widening access, and new clause 1 says that it is desirable to promote equality, but his solution is to do nothing except to trust the instincts of those in charge of admissions policies, although they have failed over the years to do anything more, for example, than to lead Oxford and Cambridge to admit people from lower-income groups to 10 per cent. of their places. OFFA is necessary not only to help to develop outreach strategies, but to ensure that they make the difference that will be absolutely essential if the Bill is to have any meaning.
	It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 378.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5
	 — 
	Abolition of tuition fees chargeable to qualifying student

'(1) This section applies to fees charged by a relevant institution in respect of a qualifying course in connection with the undertaking of that course by a qualifying student.
	(2) No fees to which this section applies may be charged in respect of any academic year unless regulations under section 22 of the 1998 Act (new arrangements for giving financial support to students) make provision in the case of all qualifying students for authorising a grant in respect of that academic year to be paid directly to the relevant institution the amount of which is equal to the amount of the fees.
	(3) In this section—
	"academic year", in relation to a course, means an academic year applicable to the course;
	"qualifying course" means a course which is—
	(a) a designated course within the meaning of the student support regulations, and
	(b) provided by an institution in England within the meaning of section 62 (7) of the 1992 Act;
	"qualifying student" means a person who is of the class specified in Schedule 1 to the student support regulations other than—
	(a) persons who are not eligible for support under the student support regulations by reason of regulations 4(2) of those regulations, and
	(b) persons who are not eligible for a grant for fees under the student support regulations by reason of regulations 10(2) of those regulations;
	"relevant institution" means an institution specified by the Secretary of State in a condition under section 68(1) of the 1992 Act or section 7(1) of the 1998 Act;
	"the student support regulations" means the Education (Student Support) (No. 2) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002/3200).'.— [Mr. Collins.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Tim Collins: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 6—Condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount—
	'(1) A condition under this section requires the governing body of the relevant institution—
	(a) to secure that, in respect of any qualifying course, the qualifying fees in respect of any academic year which begins during the grant period at a time when an English approved plan is in force in relation to the institution are equal to the prescribed amount,
	(b) to secure that, in respect of any qualifying course, no qualifying fees are charged in respect of any academic year which begins during the grant period at a time when no English approved plan is in force in relation to the institution, and
	(c) to comply with the general provisions of any English approved plan that is in force in relation to the institution during any part of the grant period during which it is in force.
	(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—
	(a) an academic year which begins at the same time as the grant period is to be taken to begin during the grant period, and
	(b) an academic year which begins with the day on which an English approved plan comes into force is to be taken to begin at a time when the plan is in force.
	(3) A condition under this section must provide—
	(a) in the event of a failure by the governing body to comply with the requirement specified in subsection (1)(a)—
	(i) where the qualifying fees are equal to the prescribed amount, for the imposition by the funding body on the governing body of any financial requirements required by a direction under section 35(1)(a), and
	(ii) where the qualifying fees exceed that amount, for the imposition by the funding body on the governing body of any financial requirements required by a direction under section 35(1)(a) and of other financial requirements determined by the funding body in accordance with principles specified by the Secretary of State in the condition under section 22,
	(b) in the event of a failure by the governing body to comply with the requirement specified in subsection (1)(b), for the imposition by the funding body on the governing body of financial requirements determined by the funding body in accordance with principles specified by the Secretary of State in the condition under section 22, and
	(c) in the event of a failure by the governing body to comply with the requirement specified in subsection (1)(c), for the imposition by the funding body on the governing body of any financial requirements required by a direction under section 35(1)(a).
	(4) Any financial requirements imposed by virtue of subsection (3) must relate to one or more of the following—
	(a) the repayment, with or without interest, of the whole or any part of any sums received by the governing body in respect of the grant, loan or other payment in question,
	(b) the withdrawal or reduction of any amount that has been awarded but not yet paid in respect of the grant, loan or other payment in question, or
	(c) the refusal to award (or to award to the extent expected) any other grant, loan or other payment under section 65 of the 1992 Act or (as the case may be) section 5 of the 1994 Act in respect of the grant period or any subsequent period.
	(5) Where—
	(a) a condition is imposed under this section in connection with any grants, loans or other payments made to the governing body of a relevant institution, and
	(b) those payments are to any extent made in respect of persons undertaking a course which is provided in whole or part by any other institution,
	then, for the purposes of this section, fees payable by such persons to the other institution are to be regarded as fees payable by them to the relevant institution.
	(6) The first regulations to be made under subsection (11) prescribing the prescribed amount shall prescribe a single amount, except where subsection (8) applies, in which case a lower amount may be prescribed.
	(7) The Secretary of State may not make the first regulations under subsection (11) prescribing the prescribed amount unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(8) This subsection applies where the qualifying fees are for—
	(a) the final academic year of a course where that academic year is normally required to be completed after less than 15 weeks' attendance;
	(b) a sandwich course where during an academic year any periods of full-time study are in aggregate less than 10 weeks;
	(c) a course of initial training of teachers, including such a course leading to a first degree, where during an academic year any periods of full-time study are in aggregate less than 10 weeks;
	(d) a course provided in conjunction with an overseas institution where during an academic year the periods of full-time study are in aggregate less than 10 weeks;
	(e) a sandwich course or a course provided in conjunction with an overseas institution where the periods of full-time study at the institution in the United Kingdom are 10 weeks or more, but in respect of the academic year and any previous such academic years the aggregate of any one or more periods of attendance which are not periods of full-time study at the institution (disregarding intervening vacations) exceeds 30 weeks.
	(9) Where regulations under subsection (11) have been made prescribing the prescribed amount no regulations under that subsection may be made increasing that amount unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the increase is no greater than is required to maintain the value of the amount in real terms.
	(10) For the purposes of subsection (9) the Secretary of State is to have regard to such index of prices as may be specified in, or determined in accordance with, regulations made by him under this subsection.
	(11) In this section—
	"academic year", in relation to a course, means an academic year applicable to the course;
	"funding body"has the same meaning as in section 22;
	"the grant period"means the period in respect of which the grants, loans, or other payments to which the relevant condition under section 22 relates are made;
	"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;
	"the prescribed amount" means the amount prescribed by regulations in accordance with this section;
	"qualifying course" means a course of any description prescribed for the purposes of this section;
	"qualifying fees", in relation to a relevant institution, means the fees payable to the institution by a qualifying person in connection with his undertaking a qualifying course;
	"qualifying person" means a person falling within any class of persons prescribed for the purposes of this section;
	"relevant institution" has the same meaning as in section 22.'.
	New clause 7—Condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount—
	'(1) A condition under this section requires the governing body of the relevant institution—
	(a) to secure that, in respect of any qualifying course, the qualifying fees in respect of any academic year which begins during the grant period at a time when a Welsh approved plan is in force in relation to the institution are equal to the prescribed amount,
	(b) to secure that, in respect of any qualifying course, no qualifying fees are charged in respect of any academic year which begins during the grant period at a time when no Welsh approved plan is in force in relation to the institution, and
	(c) to comply with the general provisions of any Welsh approved plan that is in force in relation to the institution during any part of the grant period during which it is in force.
	(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—
	(a) an academic year which begins at the same time as the grant period is to be taken to begin during the grant period, and
	(b) an academic year which begins with the day on which a Welsh approved plan comes into force is to be taken at a time when the plan is in force.
	(3) A condition under this section must provide, in the event of a failure of the governing body to comply with any of the requirements specified in subsection (1), for the imposition by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales on the governing body of financial requirements determined by the Council in accordance with principles specified by the Assembly in the condition under section 25.
	(4) Any financial requirements imposed by virtue of subsection (3) must relate to one or more of the following—
	(a) the repayment, with or without interest, of the whole or any part of any sums received by the governing body in respect of the grant, loan or other payment in question,
	(b) the withdrawal or reduction of any amount that has been awarded but not yet paid in respect of the grant, loan or other payment in question, or
	(c) the refusal to award (or to award to the extent expected) any other grant, loan or other payment under section 65 of the 1992 Act or (as the case may be) section 5 of the 1994 Act in respect of the grant period or any subsequent period.
	(5) Where—:
	(a) a condition is imposed under this section in connection with any grants, loans or other payments made to the governing body of a relevant institution, and
	(b) those payments are to any extent made in respect of persons undertaking a course which is provided in whole or part by any other institution,
	then, for the purposes of this section, fees payable by such persons to the other institution are to be regarded as fees payable by them to the relevant institution.
	(6) In this section—
	"academic year", in relation to a course, means an academic year applicable to the course;
	"the grant period" means the period in respect of which the grants, loans, or other payments to which the relevant condition under section 25 relates are made;
	"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Assembly;
	"the prescribed amount" means the amount prescribed by regulations in accordance with this section;
	"qualifying course" means a course of any description prescribed for the purposes of this section;
	"qualifying fees", in relation to a relevant institution, means the fees payable to the institution by a qualifying person in connection with his undertaking a qualifying course;
	"qualifying person" means a person falling within any class of persons prescribed for the purposes of this section;
	"relevant institution" has the same meaning as in section 25.'.
	New clause 8— Condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)— 
	'(1) A condition under this section requires the governing body of the relevant institution—
	(a) to secure that, in respect of any qualifying course, no fees are payable to any relevant institution by any qualifying person, and
	(b) to comply with the general provisions of any English approved plan that is in force in relation to the institution during any part of the grant period during which it is in force.
	(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—
	(a) an academic year which begins at the same time as the grant period is to be taken to begin during the grant period, and
	(b) an academic year which begins with the day on which an English approved plan comes into force is to be taken to begin at a time when the plan is in force.
	(3) A condition under this section must provide, in the event of a failure by the governing body to comply with the requirement specified in subsection (1), for the imposition by the funding body on the governing body of any financial requirements determined by the funding body in accordance with principles specified by the Secretary of State in the condition under section 22.
	(4) Any financial requirements imposed by virtue of subsection (3) must relate to one or more of the following—:
	(a) the repayment, with or without interest, of the whole or any part of any sums received by the governing body in respect of the grant, loan or other payment in question,
	(b) the withdrawal or reduction of any amount that has been awarded but not yet paid in respect of the grant, loan or other payment in question, or
	(c) the refusal to award (or to award to the extent expected) any other grant, loan or other payment under section 65 of the 1992 Act or (as the case may be) section 5 of the 1994 Act in respect of the grant period or any subsequent period.
	(5) In this section—
	"academic year", in relation to a course, means an academic year applicable to the course;
	"funding body" has the same meaning as in section 22;
	"the grant period" means the period in respect of which the grants, loans, or other payments to which the relevant condition under section 22 relates are made;
	"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State;
	"qualifying course" means a course of any description prescribed for the purposes of this section;
	"qualifying person" means a person falling within any class of persons prescribed for the purposes of this section;
	"relevant institution" has the same meaning as in section 22.'.
	New clause 9—Condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)— 
	'(1) A condition under this section requires the governing body of the relevant institution—
	(a) to secure that, in respect of any qualifying course, no fees are payable to any relevant institution by any qualifying person, and
	(b) to comply with the general provisions of any Welsh approved plan that is in force in relation to the institution during any part of the grant period during which it is in force.
	(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)—
	(a) an academic year which begins at the same time as the grant period is to be taken to begin during the grant period, and
	(b) an academic year which begins with the day on which a Welsh approved plan comes into force is to be taken to begin at a time when the plan is in force.
	(3) A condition under this section must provide, in the event of a failure of the governing body to comply with any of the requirements specified in subsection (1), for the imposition by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales on the governing body of financial requirements determined by the Council in accordance with principles specified by the Assembly in the condition under section 25.
	(4) Any financial requirements imposed by virtue of subsection (3) must relate to one or more of the following—
	(a) the repayment, with or without interest, of the whole or any part of any sums received by the governing body in respect of the grant, loan or other payment in question,
	(b) the withdrawal or reduction of any amount that has been awarded but not yet paid in respect of the grant, loan or other payment in question, or
	(c) the refusal to award (or to award to the extent expected) any other grant, loan or other payment under section 65 of the 1992 Act or (as the case may be) section 5 of the 1994 Act in respect of the grant period or any subsequent period.
	(5) In this section—
	"academic year", in relation to a course, means an academic year applicable to the course;
	"the grant period" means the period in respect of which the grants, loans, or other payments to which the relevant condition under section 25 relates are made;
	"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Assembly;
	"qualifying course" means a course of any description prescribed for the purposes of this section;
	"qualifying person" means a person falling within any class of persons prescribed for the purposes of this section;
	"relevant institution" has the same meaning as in section 25.'.
	New clause 10— Access to student loans—
	'In determining eligibility for student loans age may not be taken into account.'.
	New clause 12—Fee repayments for graduates employed in public sector professions—
	'The Secretary of State shall make provision for fee repayments to be met out of public funds for graduates employed as—
	(a) teachers in state maintained schools,
	(b) public law enforcement officers,
	(c) staff in the National Health Service,
	(d) social workers by local authorities, and
	(e) any other public sector worker specified by regulations who is required to have a graduate level qualification to enter that profession.'.
	New clause 13'Repayment of student loans through voluntary service or prescribed employment—
	'(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations allowing any borrower to repay any student loan, in whole or in part, through the performance of voluntary service or employment in a particular occupation.
	(2) Any such regulations may prescribe the type of voluntary service or the occupations which are eligible for such repayment, and the minimum period for which the eligible service or employment is to be performed.
	(3) Any such regulations may make different provision for different circumstances.
	(4) Any such regulations shall be laid before Parliament at least two calendar months before they are due to take effect, and shall be subject to scrutiny in such form as both Houses of Parliament may prescribe.'.
	New clause 17—Government interest rate and fee deferral—
	'(1) All fees shall be deferred, to be repaid on an income contingent basis at a government rate of interest.
	(2) A government rate of interest shall also be charged on all student loans.
	(3) All monies raised from interest payments shall be used to finance loans to students, to be repaid on terms set out by the Secretary of State, which must take into account a student's personal and household financial circumstances.'.
	New clause 19—Commencement of liability for repayment of loans—
	'(1) The Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000/944) are amended as follows.
	(2) After regulation 11(1), there is inserted—
	"(1A) A borrower shall not be liable to repay any of his student loan before the first day of the first year of assessment which falls more than fifteen years after the date on which his eligibility terminates under regulation 8 or 35 of the Education (Student Support) (No. 2) Regulations 2002.".'.
	New clause 20—Commencement of liability for repayment of loans (No. 2)—
	'(1) The Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000/944) are amended as follows.
	(2) After regulation 11(1), there is inserted—
	'(1A) A borrower shall not be liable to repay any of his student loan before the first day of the first year of assessment which falls more than ten years after the date on which his eligibility terminates under regulation 8 or 35 of the Education (Student Support) (No. 2) Regulations 2002.".'.
	New clause 21—Commencement of liability for repayment of loans (No. 3)—
	'(1) The Education (Student Loans) (Repayment) Regulations 2000 (S.I., 2000/944) are amended as follows.
	(2) After regulation 11(1), there is inserted—
	"(1A) A borrower shall not be liable to repay any of his student loan before the first day of the first year of assessment which falls more than five years after the date on which his eligibility terminates under regulation 8 or 35 of the Education (Student Support) (No. 2) Regulations 2002.".'.
	Amendment No. 128, in page 8, line 37, leave out clauses 22 to 27.
	Amendment No. 129, in page 8, line 38, clause 22, leave out from beginning to 'a' in line 40 and insert
	'The Secretary of State must, when making any grant to a funding body under section 68 of the 1992 Act or section 7 of the 1994 Act, impose under subsection (1) of the section concerned'.
	Amendment No. 32, in page 8, line 41, leave out '23' and insert
	'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.
	Amendment No. 53, in page 8, line 41, leave out '23' and insert
	'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)]'.
	Amendment No. 33, in page 9, line 11, leave out clauses 23 and 24.
	Amendment No. 19, in page 9, line 25, clause 23, at end insert
	'(d) to ensure that, in respect of any qualifying course, the qualifying fees charged to any eligible student who has received an unconditional offer of a university place through the UCAS system prior to 1st April 2006 shall not exceed the basic amount.'.
	Amendment No. 20, in page 10, line 31, at end insert—
	'"eligible student" means a student eligible for a grant under regulations made under section 22(2)(a) of the 1998 Act;'.
	Amendment No. 130, in page 11, clause 24, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—
	'(ii) each House of Parliament has at any time after 1st January 2010 passed a resolution that, with effect from a date specified in the resolution, the higher amount should be increased to an amount specified in the resolution, and the increase is an increase to the specified amount with effect from the specified date.'.
	Amendment No. 34, in page 11, line 30, clause 25, leave out '26' and insert
	'[condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.
	Amendment No. 54, in page 11, line 30, leave out '26' and insert
	'[condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)]'.
	Amendment No. 35, in page 11, line 37, leave out clause 26.
	Amendment No. 36, in page 13, line 11 clause 27, leave out '23 or 26' and insert
	'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount] or [condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.
	Amendment No. 55, in page 13, line 11, leave out '23 or 26' and insert
	'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)] or [condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)]'.
	Amendment No. 37, in page 13, line 18, leave out '23(6) or 26(6)' and insert
	'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount](11) or [condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount](6)'.
	Amendment No. 56, in page 13, line 18, leave out '23(6) or 26(6)' and insert
	'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)](5) or [condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)](5)'.
	Amendment No. 38, in page 13, line 32, leave out '23 or 26' and insert
	'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount] or [condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.
	Amendment No. 57, in page 13, line 32, leave out '23 or 26' and insert
	'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)] or [condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)]'.
	Amendment No. 98, in page 13, line 33, at end insert—
	'(4) The Secretary of State shall make provision for fee repayments to be met out of public funds for graduates employed as—
	(a) teachers in state maintained schools,
	(b) National Health Service staff,
	(c) civil servants,
	(d) law enforcement officers,
	(e) any other profession which the Secretary of State may, from time to time, determine to be appropriate.'.
	Amendment No. 71, in page 13, line 37, clause 28, leave out
	'Director (as defined by section 29(1)'
	and insert
	'funding body (as defined in section 22(2))'.
	Amendment No. 72, in page 13, line 38, leave out 'person' and insert 'body'.
	Amendment No. 73, in page 13, line 42, leave out 'person' and insert 'body'.
	Amendment No. 74, in page 13, line 45, leave out 'person' and insert 'body'.
	Amendment No. 75, in page 14, line 1, leave out clause 29.
	Amendment No. 76, in page 14, line 7, clause 30, leave out 'Director' and insert
	'relevant authority in relation to England'.
	Amendment No. 77, in page 14, line 8, leave out 'his' and insert 'its'.
	Amendment No. 22, in page 14, line 16, clause 31, leave out subsection (1).
	Amendment No. 110, in page 14, line 20, at end insert—
	'(1A) A plan under this section relating to an institution must set out the policy which the institution will observe when determining the level of fees to be charged to qualifying persons.'.
	Amendment No. 23, in page 14, line 21, leave out 'also'.
	Amendment No. 24, in page 15, leave out lines 6 to 14.
	Amendment No. 39, in page 15, leave out lines 6 to 10.
	Amendment No. 40, in page 15, line 12, leave out '23' and insert
	'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.
	Amendment No. 58, in page 15, line 12, leave out '23' and insert
	'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)]'.
	Amendment No. 41, in page 15, line 14, leave out '26' and insert
	'[condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.
	Amendment No. 59, in page 15, line 14, leave out '26' and insert
	'[condition that may be required to be imposed by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)]'.
	Amendment No. 25, in page 16, line 9, leave out clauses 35 and 36.
	Amendment No. 78, in page 16, line 10 clause 35, leave out 'Director' and insert 'relevant authority'.
	Amendment No. 79, in page 16, line 10, leave out from 'institution' to 'has' in line 12.
	Amendment No. 42, in page 16, line 11, leave out '23' and insert
	'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.
	Amendment No. 60, in page 16, line 11, leave out '23' and insert
	'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)]'.
	Amendment No. 43, in page 16, line 12, leave out '23(1)(a) or (c)' and insert
	'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount](1)(a) or (c)'.
	Amendment No. 61, in page 16, line 12, leave out '23(1)(a) or (c)' and insert
	'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)](1)'.
	Amendment No. 80, in page 16, line 12, leave out 'that requirement' and insert
	'a condition under section 23'.
	Amendment No. 81, in page 16, line 13, leave out 'Director' and insert 'relevant authority'.
	Amendment No. 82, in page 16, line 14, leave out from beginning to 'impose' in line 15.
	Amendment No. 44, in page 16, line 16, leave out '23(3)' and insert
	'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount](3)'.
	Amendment No. 62, in page 16, line 16, leave out '23(3)' and insert
	'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)](3)'.
	Amendment No. 83, in page 16, line 17, leave out 'he' and insert 'the relevant authority'.
	Amendment No. 84, in page 16, line 21, leave out 'Director' and insert 'relevant authority'.
	Amendment No. 45, in page 16, line 30, clause 36, leave out '26' and insert
	'[condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.
	Amendment No. 63, in page 16, line 30, leave out '26' and insert
	'[condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)]'.
	Amendment No. 46, in page 16, line 31, leave out '26(1)(a) or (c)' and insert
	'[condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount](1)(a) or (c)'.
	Amendment No. 64, in page 16, line 31, leave out '26(1)(a) or (c)' and insert
	'[condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)](1)'.
	Amendment No. 47, in page 17, line 3, leave out '26' and insert
	'[condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.
	Amendment No. 65, in page 17, line 3, leave out '26' and insert
	'[condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)]'.
	Amendment No. 48, in page 17, line 5, leave out '26(3)' and insert
	'[condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount](3)'.
	Amendment No. 66, in page 17, line 5, leave out '26(3)' and insert
	'[condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)](3)'.
	Amendment No. 85, in page 17, line 7, leave out clause 37.
	Amendment No. 26, in page 17, clause 38, leave out lines 18 and 19.
	Amendment No. 86, in page 17, leave out line 20.
	Amendment No. 27, in page 17, leave out lines 22 to 37.
	Amendment No. 122, in page 19, line 3, clause 40, at end insert—
	'(2A) After subsection (2) there is inserted—
	"(2A) The maximum amount of a living cost grant available to any person prescribed by regulations under subsection (2)(b) in relation to an academic year shall not be less than 90 per cent. of the higher amount in relation to that academic year.
	(2B) In subsection (2A) 'the higher amount' has the same meaning as in section 23 of the Higher Education Act 2004.".'.
	Amendment No. 125, in page 19, line 3, at end insert—
	'(2A) After subsection (3) there is inserted—
	"(3A) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(g) in relation to loans under this section may not include provision—
	(a) for a borrower to be liable to make any repayment in respect of such a loan before the first day of the first year of assessment which falls more than fifteen years after the date on which his eligibility for a grant under regulations under subsection (2) terminates, and
	(b) for such loans to bear interest before the day specified in paragraph (a).
	(3B) In subsection (3A), 'year of assessment' means the period that begins with 6th April and ends with the following 5th April.".'.
	Amendment No. 126, in page 19, line 3, at end insert—
	'(2A) After subsection (3) there is inserted—
	'(3A) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(g) in relation to loans under this section may not include provision—
	(a) for a borrower to be liable to make any repayment in respect of such a loan before the first day of the first year of assessment which falls more than ten years after the date on which his eligibility for a grant under regulations under subsection (2) terminates, and
	(b) for such loans to bear interest before the day specified in paragraph (a).
	(3B) In subsection (3A), 'year of assessment' means the period that begins with 6th April and ends with the following 5th April.".'.
	Amendment No. 127, in page 19, line 3, at end insert—
	'(2A) After subsection (3) there is inserted—
	"(3A) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(g) in relation to loans under this section may not include provision—
	(a) for a borrower to be liable to make any repayment in respect of such a loan before the first day of the first year of assessment which falls more than five years after the date on which his eligibility for a grant under regulations under subsection (2) terminates, and
	(b) for such loans to bear interest before the day specified in paragraph (a).
	(3B) In subsection (3A), 'year of assessment' means the period that begins with 6th April and ends with the following 5th April.".'.
	Amendment No. 13, in page 21, line 16, clause 43, leave out paragraph (a).
	Amendment No. 49, in page 21, line 16, leave out
	'24(1) or (2)(a)(ii) or (b)(ii)'
	and insert
	'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount](7)'.
	Amendment No. 14, in page 22, clause 48, leave out lines 7 to 18.
	Amendment No. 28, in page 22, leave out lines 8 to 10.
	Amendment No. 50, in page 22, line 8, leave out '23(6)' and insert
	'[condition by English funding bodies in relation to fees of prescribed amount](6), (7) and (11)'.
	Amendment No. 68, in page 22, line 8, leave out '23(6)' and insert
	'[condition that may be required to be imposed by English funding bodies (No. 2)](5)'.
	Amendment No. 51, in page 22, leave out line 9.
	Amendment No. 15, in page 22, leave out lines 22 to 25.
	Amendment No. 16, in page 22, leave out lines 30 and 31.
	Amendment No. 17, in page 22, line 42, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 45.
	Amendment No. 30, in page 22, leave out line 42.
	Amendment No. 52, in page 22, line 42, leave out '26' and insert
	'[condition by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales in relation to fees of prescribed amount]'.
	Amendment No. 70, in page 22, line 42, leave out '26' and insert
	'[condition that may be required to be imposed by Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (No. 2)]'.
	Amendment No. 31, in page 22, line 45, leave out 'section 36'.
	Amendment No. 7, in page 31, line 1, leave out Schedule 5.
	Amendment No. 8, in page 32, line 18, schedule 6, leave out paragraph 1.
	Amendment No. 9, in page 32, line 35, leave out from 'Council' to end of line 36.
	Amendment No. 10, in page 33, line 11, leave out paragraphs 7 and 8.
	Amendment No. 11, in page 33, line 25, leave out from 'Council' to end of line 26.
	Amendment No. 12, in page 33, schedule 7, leave out lines 34 to 36.

Tim Collins: We come to the heart of the Bill. There is only one place that the debate can commence, and that is with the words:
	"We will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated to prevent them"—
	the clear, categorical, unequivocal manifesto pledge on which all Labour Members were elected and which their Government are proposing to strong-arm them into breaking.
	New clause 5 and various amendments in this large group attempt to draw out the issue of fees. The new clause would prevent the introduction of top-up fees and tuition fees. Let us consider some of the views expressed about the proposed legislation by outside organisations— [Interruption.] We will come to universities, as the Secretary of State seems to be saying something about them.
	The British Medical Association
	"strongly opposes the introduction of top up fees for any students, including medical students."
	The Secretary of State and others will no doubt say that they are introducing the fees to raise money in part to pay for university lecturers and university employees. The National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education has said:
	"Critics of the Bill should hold their ground."
	It goes on:
	"We know that when the lid comes off fees, all hell will break loose."
	The Association of University Teachers opposes the proposals.
	The Secretary of State and Labour Members—or at least some Labour Members—may claim that the package on offer is in the interests of students and that they should welcome it. Presumably they believe that the National Union of Students has organised today's lobby at the House to say how delighted it is with the Government's proposals. I have to disillusion them: it is here to encourage hon. Members to vote not in support of the Bill, but against it.
	The NUS has helpfully compiled considerable evidence from overseas on the attitude of students in other countries. We heard much in Committee, as we have at other times, of the Government's proposals for top-up fees modelling those in other countries, and of how the glorious successes and widespread popularity of what has been introduced in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere would be eagerly welcomed in the United Kingdom. The NUS has been in touch with its equivalents around the world, and that is not what they say.

James Plaskitt: rose—

Tim Collins: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who will no doubt know about legions of students who support his Government's proposals.

James Plaskitt: The new clause would remove the funding stream from universities. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman was unable to tell us how his party would replace that funding stream. Can he tell us now?

Tim Collins: The hon. Gentleman is right in his characterisation of the new clause: it would prevent fees. There is no doubt about that; that is its intention and that is what it would achieve. He is also correct that it is the duty of Opposition parties to produce alternative proposals on how that vital funding for universities would be provided. We will do that, and we will do that earlier in this Parliament than the Government produced their final proposals on the subject in the last Parliament. The difference is that, whereas three months before the last general election the Labour party produced the final proposals that it now plans to breach, we will produce proposals earlier in the life-cycle of this Parliament, which we will implement on coming into office.

James Purnell: rose—

Tim Collins: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who, in a former capacity, may well have had a role in writing the manifesto, which he is cheerfully about to breach.

James Purnell: On the hon. Gentleman's policies, will he confirm that the envelope has been set for funding those policies by the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), and that that is a cash freeze and therefore a real-terms cut in higher education funding? If the extra money that will come from tuition fees is to be removed, how will the hon. Gentleman do anything other than cut quality and student numbers?

Tim Collins: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman was one of those who was disappointed when he found that the Opposition's proposals on the pupil passport did not turn out to be what he had hoped and expected it to be. He will be extremely disappointed when he learns of our proposals on higher education; I urge him to wait for them. We are debating the Government's proposals, which are in clear breach of the manifesto on which he stood at the general election.
	The Conservative party made exactly the same pledge at the last election. We are keeping our promises and the hon. Gentleman is breaking his. Playing party political games will not help him explain to his constituents why they should believe anything that he says at the next general election, given that he has so cheerfully broken his word from the last one.

Tony Wright: Does the grand total of nine Conservative Members on the Opposition Benches accurately reflect the commitment of the hon. Gentleman's party on this issue?

Tim Collins: Our attendance accurately reflects the eagerness of Opposition Members to allow Labour Members the maximum time for debate. We fully expect them to express more than one view, shall we say, on their happiness to break their manifesto pledge.

Peter Bradley: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman reached the end of his list of expert witnesses. What does he have to say to the Campaign for Mainstream Universities? Its statement today reads:
	"The loss of the Bill would deny universities the urgently-needed funding to provide quality education and would cruelly remove the promised improvements in financial support for the poorest students. This would damage the sector as a whole and would be particularly damaging to the Government's aims of widening participation and social exclusion."
	That message is borne out by Universities UK. What does he have to say about that?

Tim Collins: It is true—it has been throughout the debate—that the majority of vice-chancellors support the Government's proposals. They are the one and only category of people who do so. The hon. Gentleman should understand that there has been a shift of opinion in the vice-chancellor community in the past few months—from unanimous support of the Government's position to a significant number expressing profound opposition to their proposals.

Peter Bradley: rose—

Tim Collins: No, I will not give way; I am responding to the hon. Gentleman's point. He wanted to talk about the attitude of vice-chancellors, so we will talk about that. Let us consider the attitude of Professor Gillian Slater, the vice-chancellor of Bournemouth university, who said:
	"We don't have faith that the cap of £3,000 will not be raised very quickly indeed".
	That is what she believes, and it is what many other vice-chancellors believe. She was one of 15 vice-chancellors, alongside 12 university lecturers, who wrote to The Guardian yesterday to express their opposition to the centrepiece of the Government's legislation. I make no pretence of the fact that the majority of vice-chancellors support the Government's proposals. However, they are the only category of people who have taken that position, and even they are not unanimous. All other organisations, including the Association of University Teachers, the National Association of Teachers, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education and the National Union of Students, are opposed to the Government's proposals. If all the hon. Gentleman can do is say that about 90 vice-chancellors like the proposal, when 55 million people are opposed to it, bring on the election.
	I was going through the important comments that had been brought to the attention of the House by the NUS as a result of its consulting its opposite numbers in other countries, on which the Government have modelled their proposals.

Tim Boswell: From the point of view of a vice-chancellor, is there any more plausibility in the Government's assertion about the firmness of their cap of £3,000 on tuition fees than there was about the Labour party's assertion before the last election that it would not introduce top-up fees? If those assertions are equally valid, does my hon. Friend think that the majority of vice-chancellors welcome the breach of the Government's undertaking or are appalled at it?

Tim Collins: My hon. Friend makes an important point. No doubt we shall consider the Government's minor concessions on the extent to which their word on the £3,000 cap should be taken. The entirety of the Government's concessions amount to this: "It would require primary legislation, taken through both Houses of Parliament, for us to breach our solemn pledge not to raise top-up fees above £3,000." What is this Bill if not primary legislation designed to breach a clear manifesto pledge? I am at a loss to understand why the Government should think that that should impress Labour Back Benchers or anybody else.

James Clappison: In the spirit of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), does my hon. Friend recollect that, in its manifesto, Labour not only promised not to introduce top-up fees but said that the Labour Government had legislated to prevent them?

Tim Collins: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The second sentiment of that part of the Labour party manifesto is particularly interesting given the Government's attitude to amendment No. 128. The Government's line is that the amendment would remove the cap and allow universities to charge any top-up fees that they liked. Unfortunately, there is such a thing as the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, which was so important that it was mentioned in the 2001 Labour party manifesto. It enabled the Government to say in the manifesto that they had legislated to prevent top-up fees. That legislation, by which they set such store at the last general election, remains on the statute book, and it is therefore an entirely spurious argument that amendment No. 128 would remove the cap and that universities could charge whatever they liked.
	I see that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) is in her place. Given her present and former capacities, I am sure that she will be delighted to know that the co-president of the New Zealand University Students Association is named Fleur Fitzsimmons.

Lorna Fitzsimons: That is a good name.

Tim Collins: Perhaps it is. Fleur Fitzsimmons points out that the introduction of the scheme in New Zealand, which the Secretary of State says is in part the model for the proposals, has been
	"an unmitigated disaster . . . Fees act as a significant barrier to participation. The increase in debt has forced a fifth of medical graduates overseas."
	We hear similar stories in Canada.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Collins: I mentioned the hon. Lady, and I promise that I will give way to her in a moment, once I have finished this point.
	We hear that, after 10 years of tuition fees in Canada, fees have jumped by an average of 99 per cent. That reflects precisely the fears expressed by students, the British Medical Association and even some vice-chancellors: once we start on the route of top-up fees, there will be strong, steady and substantial increases. That is justified by the very overseas experience to which Ministers try to turn our attention.

Lorna Fitzsimons: My name is Fitzsimons, which is different from Fitzsimmons; anybody who could spell would recognise that. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman exchanges assertions for facts. Does he accept that, year on year between 1997 and 2000, the participation of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds in New Zealand rose from 18 per cent. to 26 per cent? The number of Maori students—who, typically, are less advantaged and in lower socio-economic groups—rose by 46.1 per cent. between 1994 and 2000. I think that that is pretty impressive, does the hon. Gentleman not think so?

Tim Collins: I apologise if I was wrong about the hon. Lady's name. I am delighted that she has made it abundantly clear that she regards New Zealand as a model for what the Government are seeking to do, because it has been reported in New Zealand that, after the introduction of precisely the sort of scheme that is proposed for this country, the result was as follows:
	"Students from the richest schools are five times more likely to attend university than students from the poorest schools."
	It has further been demonstrated that fees have impacted on where students have decided to go to university. New Zealand students therefore continue to oppose top-up fees, and I suspect that, if the hon. Lady was still an NUS office holder in this country—let alone running to become one—she might take the same attitude as all the current NUS office holders take.

Jonathan R Shaw: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many universities there are in New Zealand?

Tim Collins: It was the hon. Member for Rochdale who said that New Zealand is a great model. I take the view that it is sensible to consider what is sensible for the United Kingdom and what UK organisations do. It is not the Opposition who have been saying, "Let's imitate New Zealand"; it is the Government and Labour Back Benchers, so the hon. Gentleman is only undermining his own side. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) must contain himself. There is little point in asking a question and not listening to the answer that is given.

Tim Boswell: rose—

Tim Collins: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Tim Boswell: I am afraid that I cannot illuminate the House on the precise number of universities in New Zealand. One of the reasons why I cannot do so is that I cannot recall, when I was the Higher Education Minister in 1994 and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) was the president of the NUS, her ever coming to me, saying,"The New Zealand approach is exemplary and we should follow it."

Tim Collins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
	I was going through the list of organisations in the education sector that do not support the Government's proposals. Dr. John Brennan, the chief executive of the Association of Colleges, has said:
	"After 2010, the Bill as it stands allows universities an essentially unlimited ability to increase tuition fees. We believe this freedom will seriously compromise the chances of young people from working-class backgrounds to attend certain universities."
	As I said earlier, 15 vice-chancellors wrote to The Guardian yesterday to say that Government's measures would
	"disadvantage the majority of students".
	So I am afraid that it is simply not the case that the majority of those in the education sector enthusiastically endorse the Bill. On the contrary, the majority of those who work in education and the organisations that represent students are clearly, unequivocally opposed to the Bill and have called on Labour Members to stand by their manifesto pledges.

Peter Bradley: rose—

Lorna Fitzsimons: rose—

Tim Collins: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, because I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. [Interruption.]

Lorna Fitzsimons: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned me a tiny bit more than he has mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), but there is time. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, but he makes assertions about my leadership. It is on record that, when I was president of the NUS, I believed that students would have to pay and that we wanted the money to be end-loaded, so that we could increase the maintenance grant. As for what the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said about lobbying when I was president of the NUS, we were comparing a loans system introduced by his colleagues under which it would have been cheaper to give students the money than to administer the system, rather than comparing a variable system, which is what we are discussing now

Tim Collins: It is very interesting that all those former presidents of the NUS believe that they can speak more for the interests of students than the current president of the NUS. I thought that I had made a flippant comment earlier, but Labour Members clearly believe that all those students have come to lobby Parliament today in support of the Government's legislation. I suggest that they go out to listen to them if that is what they believe.
	Since the hon. Lady makes an important comparison about the cost efficiency of measures, let us consider the cost efficiency of the Government's proposals. To raise slightly less than £1 billion a year for universities, the taxpayer will have to spend about £1.2 billion. That does not strike most of us as remotely cost-efficient. In fact, it is an extremely inefficient way to proceed. That arithmetical link— the fact that it will cost the taxpayer about £1.25 for every £1 raised for the university—is clearly even more of a problem if, as is widely expected in the education sector, the £3,000 a year cap is only temporary and will be removed shortly. So the taxpayer will have an even worse deal as time goes on.
	One of the most important aspects of the whole debate is the Government's assumption, which they have often repeated, that graduates will almost universally end up in a massively strengthened financial position compared with non-graduates. The figure of a £400,000 premium in lifetime earnings has been bandied around. That is simply not borne out by the latest evidence that is coming to light. Many hon. Members will have seen the report in The Times this Monday about a forthcoming book by Philip Brown of Cardiff university and Anthony Hesketh of Lancaster university, both of whom are leading political economists. They point out that even three years after completing their studies, 40 per cent. of recent graduates are in jobs that do not require degree-level skills. Their survey indicates that average starting salaries for graduates are falling. They have analysed American data—an example that Labour Members often cite—and they seriously query the Government's assumption that 80 per cent. of all new jobs will require degree-level qualifications. Ministers often cite the United States as an exemplar of graduate participation that we should follow. American data apparently show that just 20 per cent. of American workers—not 80 per cent.—make use of degree-level education.

Harry Barnes: Very interesting information has been quoted and some of us would want to make use of it, but do the Conservatives therefore now entirely reject the road that they initially went down with the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990, which introduced the principle of student debt, and thus the problems of people being able to continue in education?

Tim Collins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. It is, of course, common ground among all the parties represented in the House that student loans remain the best way to provide for maintenance. They are not ideal, but no party proposes to get rid of student loans that underpin maintenance. The hon. Gentleman takes a different view, but he has not managed to persuade his Front-Bench colleagues about the issues. The view of both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties on that angle is that student loans should continue. We are talking about the principle of fees to pay for teaching itself. New clause 5 would strike out such fees, and we believe that the House would be very sensible to support that.

Brian Iddon: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman for a considerable time. The new clause is about abolishing fees altogether. However, as a former university teacher, I should be delighted if he could tell me how the Conservative party would find the money if not by introducing fees. This is an important debate, and it is right that the House is fully informed of the Conservative policy.

Tim Collins: The hon. Gentleman basically repeats a question that one of his hon. Friends asked earlier, and I will not bore the House by giving the same answer. If it is the same question, it will get the same answer.
	It is assumed that the Government's concessions on the Bill would ensure that students from lower-income backgrounds would not suffer adversely. Indeed, it is sometimes said that we can perhaps take a leaf out of the American experience and encourage students to work during their studies, because those who cite the American experience think that that is healthy. The Guardian has referred this week to unpublished research by Professor Clare Callender, who has indicated that those students who work for 16 hours a week in term time have an increased chance—of between 10 and 60 per cent.—of getting no better than a lower second-class degree or worse. Hon. Members on both sides of the House ought to reflect on that.
	By all means, let us talk about the overall spending envelope towards which the Government propose top-up fees should contribute. The Red Book states that the Government
	"will maintain per student spending levels in real terms over the 2004 Spending Review period."
	Labour Members may not be aware of the fact that per-student spending levels are lower now than they were in 1997; that they are lower than they were before tuition fees were introduced in 1998, and that they have been lower every year of this Labour Government than they were any year of the preceding Conservative Government. So a commitment simply to maintain per-student spending levels is hardly an act of extraordinary political generosity.

Anne Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the Conservative Government left office in 1997, the Government spending plans for the following two years involved a 6 per cent. decrease in university funding, and the Labour Government had to find the money to make up that deficit, having adopted the Conservatives' spending plans?

Tim Collins: The hon. Lady knows that a large number of vice-chancellors are on record as saying that they felt they were duped—their exact word—by the Government when tuition fees were introduced, because the money was subsequently clawed back by the Treasury through lower than expected levels of public finance. That is why many vice-chancellors are not satisfied that, having done that once before when introducing fees, the Government will not do it again when introducing top-up fees.
	Let us consider what the pledge means. The 2004 spending review period expires in 2007, which is just one year after the Government propose that top-up fees should come in. At that point the income from top-up fees will be well below the maximum levels that are usually quoted, because there will be only one year's cohort within the system paying top-up fees, yet at that point the Government's commitment even to maintain the present very low levels of student spending in real terms expires. So there is a very real reason for universities to fear that what the Government are giving with one hand, they may take away with the other—indeed, they may take away more than they give.

Kali Mountford: Given his criticism of the alleged claw-back, how can the hon. Gentleman be sure that there will be finances into the future out of general taxation? Can he be sure that his own Government, should there ever be one, would be able to match spending as the present Government can?

Tim Collins: As I said earlier, the hon. Lady will have to wait for our proposals. If she has the genuine interests of universities, taxpayers and students at heart, she will have a pleasant surprise when she sees those proposals unveiled. If she merely has her party's interests at heart, I am afraid it will be a very unpleasant surprise indeed. I look forward to seeing her expression when she sees our plans.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tim Collins: I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee.

Barry Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is reluctant to tell us the plans of a future Conservative Government for funding for higher education, but having forensically examined some of the comments of vice-chancellors on our proposals, he has said nothing about what vice-chancellors with any memory at all say about the funding of British universities under Conservative Administrations of the '80s and '90s. Will he enlarge on that?

Tim Collins: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to say, as I indicated earlier, that the majority of vice-chancellors support the Government's proposals. That is hardly surprising. What is surprising is that there is a significant body of vice-chancellors who do not, so the Government do not have unanimous support for their ideas from any section of the education community. Most other organisations and most other groups in education are unanimously opposed to the Government's proposals. With reference to funding under previous Governments, I am sure vice-chancellors would have liked to have more funding, but the record shows that funding per student under every year of the last Conservative Government was greater than it has been under any year of this Labour Government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tim Collins: I shall give way one last time, as I am keen to make progress so that others can speak in this important debate.

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting comparisons. He said that there was no unanimity in the education field about the proposals from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Can he recall a time when there was unanimity on any proposal to do with education put forward by a Conservative Government?

Tim Collins: It is rare indeed that the Association of University Teachers, the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education, the National Union of Students and a large bloc of vice-chancellors all strongly in agreement and, as it happens, strongly in agreement that the Government should not proceed with the Bill.

Alan Johnson: rose—

Tim Collins: I said I would not give way again, but of course I make an exception for the Minister.

Alan Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has a former higher education Minister sitting behind him. Will he confirm that all those forces—the NUS, NATFHE, the AUT and everyone he mentioned—came together in absolute coalition when a previous Tory Government moved from student grants to student loans?

Tim Collins: The interesting point is that the Secretary of State is not proposing to reverse that, is he? So that argument goes both ways.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Tim Collins: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), who I know will make a constructive contribution.

Robert Jackson: Part of the coalition that opposed us was the Labour party. I remember the speeches in the Standing Committee by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Foreign Secretary, anticipating many of the speeches that have now been made from the Conservative side in the course of the current debate. With regard to Conservative alternatives, my hon. Friend is a great admirer of Baroness Thatcher, as am I. Does he remember TINA—there is no alternative? There is no alternative to fees.

Tim Collins: As is well known, my hon. Friend does not agree with our position on that. He is perfectly honourable about that and has set out his reasons cogently. We must beg to disagree on that point. Those on the Conservative Front Bench intend to invite my hon. Friends to stand by the manifesto commitments we made at the last election. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage feels, for honourable reasons, that he cannot join us in that, but that will not deter the rest of us from continuing to advance what we believe to be the right course for the future of higher education.

Peter Bradley: rose—

Tim Collins: I will not give way again. I have given way an almost unprecedented number of times, and Labour Members who have been intervening at such great length will no doubt start complaining that they do not have a chance to make their own speeches, so I am keen to bring my remarks to a close.
	However, there are a couple of important aspects that need to be touched on. The first is debt. Why did the Government decide after the 2001 election that they needed to look again at student financing? One of the major factors was the reports reaching them about worries among students about how they would cope with the level of debt that they had. The Government thought carefully about how they could best address the issue of student or graduate debt, and came up with the proposal that the best way of doing that was to triple the tuition fees that students should pay. That seems an extraordinary way of dealing with debt.
	However they slice it, the Government's proposals will result in future graduates leaving with unprecedented levels of debt, which will undoubtedly—academic evidence is unequivocal about this—have the effect of deterring some students from going to some universities to study some subjects. We on the Conservative Benches believe that we should have a system of access to university that proceeds on the basis of ability to learn, not ability to pay. That is why we will vote as we will on these matters.
	I shall say a word or two about amendment No. 128. Our view is that new clause 5, which strikes out both top-up fees and tuition fees, is a powerful and important change to the Bill. Amendment No. 128 would strike out the five clauses that collectively not only provide for top-up fees, but provide the teeth for OFFA, the university access regulator, which rightly is strongly disliked in the university sector.
	The Secretary of State may have a document from Universities UK in which it indicates—reluctantly, I suspect—that it is prepared to live with OFFA, but that briefing note from Universities UK makes it explicitly clear that it believes that admissions policies should be the responsibility of individual institutions of higher education. That is not what the Government have been saying. The higher education Minister has consistently said in Committee and elsewhere that he believes that admissions should be a matter for individual institutions, and admissions policies should be a matter for OFFA. That is not what Universities UK seeks. That is why we invite Members to support amendment No. 128, not least on the grounds that it would defang a very unpleasant piece of social engineering and interventionism.

Peter Bradley: The hon. Gentleman has one last chance to give way.

Tim Collins: The amendments and new clauses before us are, indeed, the last chance for the House to vote to uphold the promises all of us made at the last general election. They are the last chance for all of us to vote to give this and future generations of students the same opportunity of access based on the ability to learn, not the ability to pay, which many of us enjoyed when we were 18. They are the last chance for the House to vote for fairness for all classes and all students. We must say no to fees, yes to academic freedom, and yes to a better way forward for higher education than this dishonest and discredited Bill.

Ian Gibson: I wish to speak to amendment No. 128 in my name and those of my hon. Friends, and on which I shall seek to divide the House. It was recommended by the Public Bill Office as the only way to remove the introduction of variable fees from the Bill, and that is the position that I take. We can talk about OFFA in more detail later. It would be a functional organisation and its work with the Higher Education Funding Council for England would be important. If the amendment were agreed to, that would not be eliminated as an arena for discussion where we could ensure that universities had the right access policies.
	Variable fees are a really bad idea because—

Anne Campbell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ian Gibson: I do not wish to take too many interventions because I wish to give others the chance to speak, but I give way to my hon. Friend.

Anne Campbell: Is it not the case that the amendment would remove any incentive whatever for universities to get their access plans through OFFA, because it will remove OFFA's teeth and make it completely ineffective?

Ian Gibson: I have much more faith in the university system than my hon. Friend appears to have. The universities try hard and they have new projects, with science ambassadors, and so on, and we are encouraging that. More and more people will be coming in and are coming in because of such projects initiated by the Government.
	My concerns are not new; they have been voiced many times during the Bill's anguished course, but they have not yet been satisfactorily dispelled. Variable fees will tie students' choice of degree and career to price. The choice of those with the greatest aversion to debt and those who are likely to feel its burden most—those from lower-income backgrounds—will be affected most. It was pointed out in Committee, whose debate on this matter I have read five times—it was an excellent debate and many of these issues were well and truly discussed—that higher education will be seen as a financial investment and a route to a highly paid job, rather than something to be done for love of learning, and that a variable fee makes the student concentrate more on the marketability of the course that they are about to study. I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises those words, which I wholeheartedly endorse.
	It was also pointed out in Committee and by at least 15 vice-chancellors yesterday who wrote to The Guardian—I am aware that others have contradicted this—that variable fees will further widen the difference in income between universities. Those with a higher profile and a smaller proportion of students from lower-income backgrounds, namely the Russell group, will be able to charge higher fees and generate much more income while others will be forced to charge less. There will be no redistribution of income among institutions.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will my hon. Friend accept from someone who as president of the National Union of Students campaigned for him in the seat that he now represents, that it has been an historical anomaly that those people from the lowest socio-economic background have never achieved more than a maximum of 15 to 20 per cent. representation during the past 40 years in higher education, and that 51 per cent. of students studying in higher education institutions—postgraduate, overseas, mature and part-time students—are subject to variability, and none of the matters that he is addressing and which amendment No. 128 will remove, will address the fact that variability has not done what he claims for the 51 per cent. of people studying in higher education, and will not address the issue of getting better representation in higher education for the people whom he and I came into politics to represent?

Ian Gibson: I thank my hon. Friend for her creative work in Norwich during that election. She may or may not think it was valuable looking down at me now, but she is absolutely right about this issue in other areas of higher education. I do not particularly endorse that, but I noticed in the Committee proceedings that some Members said that in those areas that my hon. Friend mentioned, there may not be as much variability as one might think. I see much effort being made to try to eliminate that in terms of part-time students, and others, to try to make it easier for them with bursaries, and so on.

Peter Bradley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ian Gibson: I really do want to allow others time to speak, but I shall give way one last time.

Peter Bradley: My hon. Friend made a point about the differential income of universities that he believes would arise from variable fees, and that was my concern before the Government agreed to take responsibility for the cost of the disbursements in grant that the university would have to make. Because of that adjustment, it now seems likely that some of the modern universities, which are teaching-led, will gain up to a 50 per cent. increase on their current income, whereas universities, such as Oxford and Cambridge, that are basically research-led, will have increases in the order of 10 per cent. or less. Therefore, the statistics show that the modern universities, which we all seek to support because they are doing most to widen access, are the ones that will benefit from the new income regime.

Ian Gibson: That is a fair point, but if one looks at the whole picture, some universities are enriched, with all the extra money for research from their colleges, and so on, while others do not have such a privileged financial background.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend chairs the Education and Skills Committee as I do, and we usually work well together, but what does he say to the general criticism that his amendment has been construed as a wrecking amendment, because he is a bad loser, having lost on Second Reading. [Interruption.] Is that a fair criticism?

Ian Gibson: Those are really kind words. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members try to contain themselves when others are on their feet so that we can all hear what is being said? I am afraid that I could not hear most of that intervention.

Ian Gibson: I shall treat that intervention with the disdain that I and many other hon. Members believe that it merits.
	Part of the argument for variability has been that there are real differences between courses, which should be reflected in their fees. I do not know how we will quantify those differences. Do we match some arbitrary notion of quality to a figure, or do we measure courses against their potential financial pay-offs for the student? Do we judge it by reputation of the institution? How do we think that it will work? The market is unpredictable, and once we further extend the market principle into higher education, we do not know how things will turn out.

Lynne Jones: Is it not already well documented by Universities UK research that young people from the lowest socio-economic groups invariably attend the modern universities and stay at home because that is the cheapest way that they can study? Is it therefore not clear that such students will always attempt to achieve the lowest cost to themselves and the lowest debt on leaving university? That is the iniquity of variable fees. The Russell group universities will charge much higher fees.

Ian Gibson: I do not particularly subscribe to my hon. Friend's conclusions, but I admit that there is a problem there that needs addressing. I am sure that other Labour Members will be glad to take up that issue. I want to bash on to give others a real chance to speak.
	The need to attract students to under-subscribed courses, say in the sciences—others may deal with that—may lead to such courses being offered at a lower price that neither reflects the cost of running the course or what a graduate might earn in the future. If lower fees are to be used as an incentive, can we reasonably argue that higher fees will not act as a disincentive? I welcome the aid packages that have been put in place to reduce the deterrence factor, but I am not convinced that they will be enough.

Robert Jackson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I quite understand why the hon. Gentleman is addressing his own Benches, but some Opposition Members would like to hear what he has to say.

Ian Gibson: I explained on Second Reading that I had to watch where I turned my back, and nothing has changed much since then.
	I welcome those aid packages, but many students who do not qualify will be basing their decisions primarily on price. Even those who do qualify will still be looking for the so-called best deal—a phrase that has been used often.
	One of the more seductive arguments for variability has been that while it allows universities to charge higher fees, it also allows them to charge less. I have already spoken about why universities might charge less. The argument concerns me because I can see it being used in the not-too-distant future in favour of raising the cap. Universities are already arguing that £3,000 is not enough to close the funding gap. I know that it is some way down the line and that there have been attempts to restrict that, but it is not ruled out for ever. Once that door is opened, it will happen. Those words are not mine, but those of esteemed vice-chancellors who have supported the Bill.
	The same arguments will no doubt be rehearsed again, although the intensity of the debate will depend on which Government are in power. The cap will rise and divisions between rich and poor institutions and students will widen further. The money from the new legislation will only just have begun to reach the universities when the promised review of the system takes place. By then, it will be both too late and too soon to turn back, and we will, most likely, have no option but to continue down the same path, which we still have a choice about embarking on today. Can we honestly expect that the other funding models that we have not been able to debate openly will be considered if top-up fees do not appear to be working?
	Amendment No. 128, which I and colleagues have tabled, has aroused lots of confusion and controversy. I firmly resent the allegation that I have been colluding with the Opposition in an attempt to derail my own Government. I regret that this issue has been turned into a matter of loyalty; it is a matter of principle that strikes at the very core of what Labour Members stand for. The amendment was tabled in good faith by those who wish to keep intact the positive aspects of the Bill, but prevent the introduction of variability as a matter of principle and for the reasons that I have outlined.
	The effects of the amendment were checked with the Public Bill Office. If the amendment is passed, section 26 of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 will remain and prevent universities from raising fees. That will be the case unless the Government themselves repeal section 26. It will be open to the Government to introduce amendments in the Lords to change the level of the current fee should they so desire.

Alan Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I accept, because he is an honourable man, his assurance that he has not colluded with the Conservative party and does not consider the amendment as seeking to wreck the Bill. Did he hear the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), the Opposition spokesman, say on the "Today" programme of the amendment:
	"I think it was quite rightly described yesterday morning . . . by the Higher Education Minister . . . as a wrecking amendment. It undermines the Government's whole policy."
	He said that it takes away the powers that the regulator has to impose any kind of sanction on universities. Does he accept that that is the view of Her Majesty's official Opposition?

Ian Gibson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that contribution. I am very glad that I am not associated with that particular view. I do not agree with that view at all, as that is not my reason for tabling the amendment.

Clare Short: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in Parliament, we are supposed to respond to proposals that come from the Government, and we often find ourselves voting with the Opposition on issues such as peace in Northern Ireland? It also happened on the war in Iraq. The suggestion that those of us who want to adhere to our manifesto commitment and ensure equity in access to higher education are playing games with the Opposition is a dishonourable attack.

Ian Gibson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention.
	I am told that the restoration of student grants and the proposed repayment scheme that will be introduced by secondary legislation" again, this comes from the Public Bill Office—would not be affected by the amendment and should not be dependent on the introduction of variable fees. I am told that the office for fair access would still be able to monitor access. These are progressive measures that only our Government, a Labour Government, could put forward. The already rising amounts of student debt and increased hardship, as well as widening access, all need to be addressed. I feel that introducing variable fees is a heavy price to pay for these measures that counteracts any improvements that can be made.
	I am told that the Bill would not have to be withdrawn if the amendment were passed. That would be a travesty because of the positive things that it contains. The issue of variability has been presented as non-negotiable from the start. If any issue needed and was crying out for negotiation, variable fees would be it.
	Ultimately, a decision needs to be made on whether variable fees are essential for developing our universities into a truly national system based on excellence where innovation and scholarship flourish. On balance, I believe that the Government would be making less of a compromise if they were to support the amendment, scrap variable fees and prevent a divided and divisive university system.

Phil Willis: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson).
	I wish to speak to a series of amendments. In particular, new clause 8 would remove all fees in exactly the same way as new clause 5, which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) tabled. New clause 9 is consequential on new clause 8 and would remove fees in Wales. Amendments Nos. 53 to 58 and 71 to 86 are also consequential on new clause 8 and new clause 9. New clause 10 deals with age discrimination, and new clause 12 relates to public services.
	One of the saddest sights in the past few weeks since the conclusion of the Committee stage has been the witch hunt that has been conducted against the hon. Member for Norwich, North because he happens to disagree with those on the Government Front Bench. For any member of the Government party to be called disloyal for supporting his own manifesto seems the most absurd piece of skullduggery from those on the Government Benches that one could imagine.
	May I also say to the Secretary of State and the Minister that the disingenuous comments made on yesterday's "Today" programme, which have been repeated today, suggesting that amendment No. 128 would open the floodgates in allowing universities to charge fees in excess of £10,000, are absolute nonsense. In reality, two amendments have been tabled—[Interruption.] The Minister will have to contain himself. Amendments Nos. 10 and 12 would restore to the Bill those elements of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998 that the Government wish to take out and replace. Nevertheless, the Minister and the Secretary of State should be honest enough—I believe that they are honest gentlemen—to say that there is no evidence to show that, before 1998, any university in the United Kingdom charged either tuition fees or differential fees. They did not do so, because measures in the Education (Schools) Act 1992 and the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 prevented them from doing so. Of course, the Higher Education Funding Council for England and its predecessor bodies had powers allowing them not to give grant funding to universities that misused their charter. Those powers were put into the 1998 Act primarily as a result of Labour Back Benchers' concerns that there was nothing in the measure to limit the powers top-up fees or further fees. That was the reason for it. I suspect that HEFCE's powers will be exactly the same as those before 1998, and I expect the Minister to address that specific issue when he winds up the debate.
	New clause 10 addresses age discrimination, which was briefly addressed in Committee, and many organisations that work with older people such as Age Concern and the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education support it. The Government have recognised that, for a variety of reasons, people will work longer in the workplace than was assumed 10 or 15 years ago. When I was working in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we all assumed that we would have so much leisure time that we would scramble around and not know what to do with it. In reality, many people will certainly work until the age of 65 and beyond, and to deny them access to the same conditions as under-55s is fundamentally wrong.
	In October 2000, the UK Government signed the EU directive on equal treatment for older people, and they are committed to implementing age legislation by 2006, but if the Bill is enacted in its current state, it will directly contradict that intention. The Government have moved on supporting students over 55 years of age, and I hope that they agree to examine that issue in their review of the funding arrangements. Although I will not ask for a separate vote on new clause 10, I trust that the Minister will address that issue in his winding-up speech.
	New clause 12 is the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) new clause, and it is the direct response to what he claimed he had achieved when he decided not to support those who oppose top-up fees by voting for the Second Reading of the Bill. On Second Reading, he said:
	"My fear is for the next poorest, particularly those who wish to make a career in the professions and public service and are therefore likely to incur above-average expenses while studying"—[Official Report, 27 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 191.]
	In the round of broadcasts conducted by him, it was assumed that he had received a concession from the Secretary of State that there would be legislation, or certainly regulation, to allow those people going into the public sector to have preferential treatment on fees and the interest paid on those fees.
	The issue is serious: however income-contingent repayment of debt is presented, we want many of the students who graduate from our universities—the Government anticipate that 75 per cent. of universities will charge the maximum top-up fee—to go into the public services. We want graduates to become policemen, social workers, teachers and health professionals, which is right and proper. As an employer, the Government are right to ask, "What should we put in place to support those people?"
	If somebody who works in the public sector moves into the private sector, however, it is not the taxpayer's responsibility to support them by contributing to their fees and associated costs, which private sector employers should support. The Secretary of State was bold to state in the White Paper that he and his colleagues must get to grips with that issue. Whether the Home Office pays the costs of graduate policemen, whether other Departments pay or whether the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pays, is not an issue for this debate, but it must certainly be addressed.

Jonathan R Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Government support people who go into public service? For example, teachers engaged in postgraduate training receive £6,000. Indeed, support for the public services in the south-east has been enhanced, and there has been a further announcement on the keyworker initiative, which assists front-line public sector workers with the expensive cost of housing in the south-east—it is all money.

Phil Willis: Before the hon. Gentleman gets excited, I have always conceded that the Government assist in many of those areas, but that is not the point of my argument. My point is that after the Bill is enacted, top-up fees will result in significant debt from 2006 onwards, which will be a whole new ball game. We should not cherry-pick the way in which we support people who take certain subjects—

Jonathan R Shaw: Why not?

Phil Willis: I will tell the hon. Gentleman why not. The housing costs for a teacher of religious education or music in London are exactly the same as those for somebody teaching mathematics. The idea of giving one of them a £6,000 golden hello—

Jonathan R Shaw: rose—

Phil Willis: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman; I am answering his question, for goodness' sake. [Laughter]. I am sorry—I sometimes forget that I am not a head teacher any more. [Hon. Members: "You will be."] No, they would not have me.
	The new clause would ensure that once someone has become a key public sector professional such as a teacher or a nurse, where a degree is an entry requirement, the 9 per cent. of disposable income payable and the interest on any remaining debt is paid for by the state, and if that person leaves the profession after two years, as they are entitled to, they pick up the costs. I hope that hon. Members will see that as a simple and positive mechanism for supporting public sector workers. I intend to press new clause 12 to a vote.
	I turn to new clause 8 and amendment No. 128. We support Conservative Front Benchers' basic principle on the removal of fees, as stated in new clause 5, as well as the removal of top-up fees. We certainly support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Norwich, North, and we will vote with him on that.
	In his speech, the hon. Member for Norwich, North mentioned the notion of generous grants. That was picked up by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who accused the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives of scaremongering. Let us at least understand the basis on which we are having this debate. At the moment, poorer students pay no fees at all. It was a Labour Government who in 1998 introduced up-front fees. Labour Members are now railing against them and saying what a wonderful job they are doing in removing them.

Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman has made many points about fees and debt. Does he accept that the fees and costs combined will be repaid at a gentler rate, which equalises the situation between students and makes the whole situation much easier for them all?

Phil Willis: With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, I have never denied that. The reality is that the debt will be no smaller as a result of the new proposals; graduates will simply repay it for a lot longer. The hon. Lady fails to understand that. In fact, a person's debt gets bigger if over a number of years their income does not qualify them to pay the 9 per cent. of disposable income, because the interest is added every year after that.
	I was responding to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North. At the moment, the poorest students pay no fees and get a maintenance loan of £4,000. They pay nothing up front, and when they have graduated they start to pay it back. I can see that the new system is more generous in terms of paying the money back over a longer period.
	In future, poorer students who go to a top university will pay a fee of £3,000, which will be deferred because they get a loan to cover it. They will therefore not have to pay it up front and they will get another £3,500 in grant. At the end of their time at university, they will have not £4,000 of debt but £6,500 for every year. That is £19,500 of debt for the poorest students. I accept that they have had the money as disposable income during their time at university, but they will be worse off and have a bigger debt than current students. If Professor Callender is right and every study that the Government have carried out is right—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Phil Willis: My goodness—I should like to make some progress.
	If every single item of research is right, the Government will know that debt deters poorer students—the very students whom the hon. Member for Nottingham, North and I want to encourage to go to university.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Given that the hon. Gentleman is making a great effort to be sincere, will he deal with a genuine point about Liberal Democrat representation on the streets of Rochdale about current provision? It bears no resemblance to his comments. Liberal Democrats in Rochdale claim that all students have to pay up-front fees. Will he disassociate himself from rank-and-file Liberal Democrats who misrepresent policy? Does he accept that students do not have to pay back the grant? His calculations are simply wrong.

Phil Willis: The hon. Lady's first comment was unacceptable and I hope that she will withdraw it.

Lorna Fitzsimons: What about Rochdale?

Phil Willis: What happens on the streets of Rochdale, God only knows. I have never claimed that the £2,700 plus the £300 bursary has to be repaid. I do not believe that any hon. Member has ever heard me say that. However, students will have to repay the loan of £3,500 plus the tuition fee of £3,000. That makes £6,500 every year. So much for generous grants.
	Amendment No. 122 tabled by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) hits the nail on the head. When we began the debate, the £3,000 in grant and bursary was roughly equal to the top-up fee of £3,000. However, that sort of balancing equation will not occur in the future. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but by 2010, top-up fees may increase to £5,000 or £10,000 but there is no commitment in the Bill to increase grants and bursaries commensurately. The hon. Member for Hemsworth said that he wants a 90 per cent. link. I would be happy with any sort of link to ensure that students get that support in future.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is making a case for no fees, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) presents a rational argument in his amendment. As my hon. Friend knows, because I have spoken to him, the only problem that we have with it is inscribing in legislation a percentage that we might want to change more beneficially. If we were to accept the amendment, we would always be stuck with 90 per cent. That is why we prefer to leave percentages out of primary legislation and put them in regulations.

Phil Willis: I accept that there are difficulties, but will the Minister accept later an amendment to include in the measure an affirmative resolution to cover the £3,000 and any cap on the fee above inflation after 2010? It is right to establish mechanisms to ensure that students at the top universities, which charge the highest fees, get commensurate grants.

Jon Trickett: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I hope to speak later if I can catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point of my amendment is to probe the Government. By 2010, a higher rate of fees might well have let rip: the upper limit could be £10,000 or even £15,000. What would then happen to the £3,000 grant and bursary? There is no linkage in the Bill, or in anything that Ministers have said so far, to provide for working-class kids and kids from poorer homes to get the £10,000 to £15,000 that might be being charged by then. That is the point of my amendment, but, so far, the Government have given no indication that any such linkage would exist.

Phil Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If he does not get the opportunity to speak, at least he has put that point on record. I hope that my description of his amendment was accurate.
	Those Labour Members who intend enthusiastically to support the Bill and oppose the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and others must understand that the only way that poorer students will gain any advantage in 2006 will be if they take their £2,700 grant and go to the cheapest university offering the cheapest course. That is the only way in which they will be better off under the Government's proposals, unless they invest the whole £3,000 on the stock market and hope that they make some money.

Jonathan R Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Willis: No, I want to make some progress because I appreciate that a lot of people want to speak.
	The hon. Member for Norwich, North rightly said that the Government's proposals would create a market in higher education. We have had many debates on this issue, and I conceded in Committee that there is currently a social market in higher education. Given that students from the lower socio-economic groups make up only 9 per cent. of those who go to Oxford and Cambridge, we should ask whether that is because the lower socio-economic groups are intellectually inferior, as has been suggested.

Jonathan R Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman welcome the £3,000 bursaries—[Hon. Members: "£4,000."] They have gone up already. Will he welcome the £4,000 bursaries that Cambridge will make available to poorer students? That move has come in on the back of this Bill. The Bill is changing the whole atmosphere, and more and more universities are proposing similar schemes.

Phil Willis: May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman spends a little time in the Library and consider the wealth that many of the Oxford colleges have at their disposal? He should consider the £4,000 bursaries in relation to that wealth. He might then like to consider the wealth of Wolverhampton university, 47 per cent. of whose intake is from the three lowest socio-economic groups, or of the universities in Hull. He would see a totally different picture there. If he is saying that every university in the land, even the least endowed ones, will give all students a £4,000 top-up to their grant, then heaven has arrived here in the House of Commons. The reality, however, as he knows, is that that is arrant nonsense.

David Rendel: Does my hon. Friend recall that the vice-chancellor of Cambridge university recently came to this place and was asked what proportion of Cambridge students come from the lowest socio-economic groups now, and what proportion she expects to come from those groups under the new scheme? She said that the proportion from those groups on which Cambridge is budgeting in order to be able to give this £4,000 bursary is just 11 per cent., and that if the proportion exceeds that, it will not be able to afford any more bursaries.

Phil Willis: My hon. Friend makes a most telling point. That is the reality. If a cash-rich university such as Cambridge cannot afford more than a 2 per cent. increase, what chance is there across the piece?

Robert Jackson: The hon. Gentleman has been comparing endowments. He should consider the matter more broadly, rather than just what happens in this country. If he compares the endowments of Oxford and Cambridge not just with Harvard, Stanford, Princeton or Yale but with American state universities, which have been building up endowments, he will find that they pale into significance, and yet those are the universities with which Oxford, Cambridge and a few other universities in this country must compete.

Phil Willis: As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Harvard and Yale, which are the two best-endowed universities in the world—not just in America—achieve through all their glorious endowments and bursaries 4.7 per cent. of students from the lower socio-economic groups in the United States. If that is the vision for the United Kingdom's higher education system, there is no point any of us being here, because it is a travesty in terms of ambition. I want the students whom I have taught for most of my life, who come from very poor backgrounds, to be able to get into the top universities, rather than choosing their course or university on the basis of how much they can afford.
	Fees and top-up fees will create a financial market that will be ruinous to our higher education system. If the Secretary of State were proposing variability that was uncapped, his argument would have real integrity. Some people argue that those who spend £10,000, £20,000 or £30,000 educating their sons and daughters in the sixth form of a private school should not receive tuition for nothing when they go to university. That is not what the Government are proposing, however. They are proposing a cap on variability, which is a contradiction in terms. I said that on Second Reading, and I say it again, because that is the reality. By 2010, that cap, by the Government's admission, will starve universities of the cash that they need now—[Interruption.] Labour Members must not believe all the rhetoric that comes out of fairy house down at Millbank—[Interruption.] That was a Freudian slip.
	In the first year of variable fees, the maximum additional income that universities will get—all our universities, given the Government's figures—is about £300 million—[Interruption.] That is so. In that first year, only one year of students will pay top-up fees. It will take three years before three cohorts are in and the universities get the maximum amount of money.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman's proposal would remove £800 million that the universities currently get from fees. He cannot argue that they will have to wait a few years for an extra £1 billion while proposing that they should immediately lose almost £1 billion in revenue, which they receive at the moment.

Phil Willis: The Minister has been characteristically honest, but that is not what I am proposing at all. The Liberal Democrat position is clear: we want to raise the higher rate of tax to 50p in the pound. That would apply to incomes of more than £100,000 a year.

David Chaytor: rose—

Phil Willis: I am trying to reply to the Minister. The hon. Gentleman should not get so excited.
	According to the Treasury, what we propose would raise £4.7 billion. The £2 billion that we would spend would give universities £1.1 billion immediately, and would replace the fees now paid by students. The Conservative Front Benchers who tabled the new clause would not give universities a penny extra. They would do no more than decimate the number of university entrants, and they would use the additional resources elsewhere. Please let them not accuse the Liberal Democrats of not having a solution.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Phil Willis: I want to finish my speech, as many other Members wish to speak.
	We support the removal of fees and top-up fees, as an issue not of popular politics but of principle. We opposed the introduction of tuition fees in 1997 and 1998, and we stated in our 1997 manifesto that we opposed both top-up and tuition fees. I have here a copy of the Labour party manifesto, entitled "Ambitions for Britain". It states on page 19:
	"We will not introduce 'top up' fees and have legislated to prevent them."
	What is in that document is nothing but a deception of the British public. Page 19, like the rest, needs to be ripped out and torn up.

NOTHING

NOTHING

Anne Campbell: I shall speak to new clauses 6 and 7 and the consequential amendments Nos. 32 to 52. I shall also speak to amendments Nos. 129 and 130. I understand that the Government are prepared to accept amendment No.129, and I am happy to allow the Minister to speak to it. I am pleased and grateful that the Government have made such an important concession.
	Let me explain what my new clauses are all about and why I cannot support amendment No.128. New clauses 6 and 7 and the consequential amendments would remove the provision for variable fees and replace it with a provision for a fixed fee. To that extent they are similar to amendments that I tabled in Committee that were defeated, although they were supported by the Liberal Democrats.
	My new clauses and amendments would strengthen OFFA, the regulator. They would remove the basic fee altogether. In order to charge fees at all, universities would have to draw up credible plans to improve access, which would have to be passed by the regulator. Having negotiated that hurdle, they would be able to charge a fee; but it would be a fixed fee. I have not specified the level of the fee, but I would expect it to be set somewhere between £2,500 and £3,000. Once fixed, it could be raised only with inflation. I stress that my proposal would leave the Bill intact.

Valerie Davey: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her cohesive new clauses and amendments, which offer a constructive alternative to variable fees. Does she agree that the possible polarisation of universities, which variable fees could allow to develop, is an element that is not addressed in the Bill?

Anne Campbell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, about which I have great concern. I represent a city constituency with two universities: Cambridge university and Anglia polytechnic university. I am aware of the wide differences between those universities and I should certainly not want to see them become wider.
	I want to emphasise that mine are not wrecking amendments, and if the Government wished to, they would be able to operate within the regime defined in the amendments. In proposing my new clauses and amendments, I believe that I am carrying out the wishes of the majority of my constituents. Although in the constituency survey that I conducted there was considerable support for the student support package in the Bill, many people, particularly students, said that they did not want a variable fee. It is true, of course, that some of those people did not want a fee at all. Most students, when asked, say that they would prefer not to pay fees and for all the funding to come from general taxation. However, that is not the view of the rest of my constituents, and I must also take their views on board. I believe that it is right for students to make a contribution towards the cost of their education, which is the only realistic way of getting the extra money that is so desperately needed into universities.
	I do not like variable fees because I do not like the prospect of introducing a market into higher education.

David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend believe that there are lessons to be learned from the United States of America, whose marketisation of higher education began in 1979? In that year, four times more undergraduates from the top 25 per cent. by income of the population attended university than their less-well-off compatriots. After 25 years, that ratio has now grown to 10:1. Is that not the real risk of marketisation?

Anne Campbell: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but I do not think that the Government's proposals are as damaging as the provisions in the US. Although marketisation might bring some damaging effects, I do not believe that the damage here will be as great as in the United States.
	I am worried, however, that students might choose courses because they are cheap, rather than because they are really suited to those students' aptitudes and abilities. I am also concerned that some universities might decide to charge a lower fee because they cannot attract enough students with a high fee. They will not then have the cash to pay for good quality staff and equipment, and standards will begin to spiral downwards.
	I am also concerned that the modern universities take by far the highest proportion of lower-income students, and that their ability to pay generous bursaries is compromised to some extent by sheer numbers.

Peter Bradley: Does my hon. Friend agree that she has just set out the case for why it is highly unlikely that a market will develop in higher education? That is precisely because no university, whether Cambridge, Oxford, Wolverhampton or Huddersfield, can afford to forgo the income that it would secure by charging variable fees—top-up fees or, as they now are, top-down fees, and fixed fees with discounts. Does she have any evidence that a market will develop in higher education?

Anne Campbell: That remains to be seen. If my new clauses and amendments are not successful this evening, and if the Bill goes through, there will be a review after a three-year period so that we can examine the situation that has developed. I have set out the fears, however, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) has just pointed out the damaging situation that there has been in the US. The worry is that the same situation, to a lesser extent, might develop here, although, as I have said, I do not think that the proposals will be as damaging here as the United States provisions have been.

Tony Wright: Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that the Bill offers a highly regulated market in higher education? The consequence of a highly regulated market model failing is a cutting-loose by those parts of the system that want to create an unregulated market. If that happened, we would get not the status quo, but an unregulated market.

Anne Campbell: That is the very thing that my amendment is trying to avoid. I hope that by replacing the variable fee with a higher fixed fee, it will give the universities extra money, which they so badly need, and would at the same time prevent marketisation from developing.

Paul Farrelly: I just want to probe whether my hon. Friend's amendment is a probing amendment or whether she intends to press it to a Division. If she does press it to a Division, and if the amendment is successful, have the Government already given any indication of what would happen to the Bill? Have they, for instance, indicated that they might withdraw the Bill if the amendment is passed?

Anne Campbell: I would like to press the amendment to a Division and I have said that already. I believe that the Government have made some indications to other people about what would happen in the event of the amendment being passed, but I am afraid I have not had any indication so far of what would occur. However, I stress that the amendment is not intended to be a wrecking amendment. It is a very carefully constructed amendment, which would leave the Bill intact.
	It has already been mentioned that Cambridge university has proposed paying bursaries of £4,000 to students from lower-income backgrounds. That means, of course, that with the £2,700 that is available from the Government, lower-income students in my constituency would have £6,700 per annum available without any need to take out a loan. I believe that that is very generous. However, students who are fortunate enough to get a place at Cambridge are likely to do much better for financial support than those who go to one of the ex-polytechnics.
	I should like briefly to discuss my amendment No. 129 and then give my support to amendment No. 130, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). Amendment No. 129 is very important as it changes the powers of the Secretary of State into an obligation. Under both the current legislation and the proposed legislation, the Secretary of State has the power to prevent universities from charging more than the cap, but he does not have a duty to do so. This means that if the legislation passes tonight without the amendment, a Secretary of State who does not wish to enforce the legislation has no need to do so and the House could not compel him to do so. If for instance, Dr. Richard Sykes comes along in a few years' time and says, "I cannot manage with a fee of £3,000 so I am going to charge £5,000", we may have a Secretary of State at that stage who thinks that that is probably correct, but does not wish to go through the burdensome process of either secondary or primary legislation or even the affirmative resolution process. That Secretary of State could say, "I do have the power to stop you, but I am not going to exercise that power, so go ahead." There is nothing at that stage that Parliament could do because we have left it to the discretion of the Secretary of State.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, as she did in Committee. But is it not the case now that universities can charge as much as they want? Obviously, they would not receive any money from HEFCE, so is there not a real danger that unless universities of the type that my hon. Friend is describing receive a steady income stream now and for the future, some universities might decide to go it alone and charge enormous fees, and the type of access to which we all aspire would simply go out of the window?

Anne Campbell: That is the situation that the amendment is intended to address. My amendment would make it very clear that the Secretary of State is obliged to prevent the university from charging the higher fee—not just having the power to do it, but an obligation to do it. I therefore consider this to be an extremely important amendment—without it, the debates that have raged on the cap and on variability and whether to charge fees at all simply fade into insignificance. It is an important amendment and I hope that hon. Members will support it this evening.
	I also wish to support amendment No. 130, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test and others. It would mean that the cap could not be raised above inflation before 2010 without primary legislation, and beyond that point only by amendable resolution on the Floor of both Houses of Parliament. I tabled similar amendments—Nos. 123 and 124—but I have withdrawn them in favour of amendment No. 130. A new higher education Bill would not be the best way to raise the cap, but that would have been the effect of my amendments. I congratulate my hon. Friends on finding a way that makes the condition much stronger than the secondary legislation would have done, because the resolution would be amendable and would give rise to a debate on the Floor of the House. I strongly urge all hon. Members to support that amendment.
	I shall now explain why I cannot support amendment No. 128. As it stands, the amendment would remove clauses 22 to 27, which impose the conditions under which fees can be levied. That would mean, for one thing, that amendment No. 129 would fall, because it relates to clause 22 and the powers and duties of the Secretary of State. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) believes that if we passed his amendment we would revert to the current legislation as defined in the 1998 Act. He suggests that the Government would have to introduce further amendments in the House of Lords to raise the fee to a more realistic level. However, given the current state of relations between the two Houses, I do not share his optimism that their Lordships would play ball.
	There is a more important objection. Without any further amendments to remove the repeal measures of the 1998 Act, as defined in schedule 6, the effect of my hon. Friend's amendments would be to deregulate fees completely, because that schedule will repeal the parts of the Act that refer to the current fee regime. The Conservative spokesman pointed out that amendments have been tabled that would remove the repeal of the provisions in the 1998 Act, but they were not tabled by my hon. Friend. To my surprise, they were tabled by the hon. Members for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). Are those amendments really intended to be consequential amendments to amendment No. 128? If so, how come they were tabled by the Conservatives and not by my hon. Friends? I have to ask what is going on there.

Clare Short: The purpose of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), and supported by so many of us who wish to adhere to our manifesto commitment, is to take variability out of the Bill. We would like the Government to accept that principle. If some consequential amendments had to be made in the other place, they would be easily carried, given how the different parties line up there. We are talking about a principle, not the technicalities of amendments. Let us be straightforward with each other.

Anne Campbell: I accept what my right hon. Friend says, but those consequential amendments appear on the amendment paper tonight and they were tabled by the Conservatives. I accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North has not colluded with the Conservatives, but I find it extraordinary that the consequential amendments have been tabled by them.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I know that my hon. Friend has many years of experience lobbying the other place on higher education—as have I—and we have discovered that it has its own mind on that subject and peers often buck the Whip. Therefore, any assurances or blandishments that suggest that the Opposition might co-operate should be viewed with scepticism.

Anne Campbell: Given the present mood of the upper House, I find it inconceivable that any measure that was not passed successfully by this House could be moved successfully there.
	If any of my hon. Friends are tempted to support amendment No. 128, I hope that they realise that to complete the ends that they are supposedly trying to achieve they will have to vote for amendments tabled in the name of Conservative Members. No Labour Member's name is put to those amendments—there are not even any Liberal Democrat or Plaid Cymru Members' names, only Conservative Members' names. I wonder what local constituency parties would think of that.

Paul Farrelly: On the point of principle, does my hon. Friend accept that the effect of her amendments would be exactly the same as that of amendment No. 128, because they would remove variability from the Bill? If either were accepted, the effect would be the same—the Bill would be withdrawn.

Anne Campbell: I spent a great deal of time carefully constructing amendments that would leave the Bill intact. They would not only leave the Bill intact, but strengthen the role of OFFA, the regulator. I would have thought that many Labour Members would want to achieve that, rather than taking the teeth out of OFFA completely.

Ian Lucas: Has my hon. Friend received any indication from the Government of what their attitude to her amendments would be if they were accepted? Have they said that they would withdraw the Bill?

Anne Campbell: I answered that question earlier. The Government have not given any indication to me, but I understand that the Whips have been talking to people about the consequences of their support for my amendments, although I do not know what that might be.
	A further problem for Labour Members is that the consequential amendments to amendment No. 128 would turn OFFA—the mechanism by which we will increase access for students from non-traditional backgrounds—into a toothless tiger. We would keep OFFA, but there would be no incentive for universities to increase access, so what would be the use of that?
	Let us suppose that sufficient Labour Members vote for amendment No. 128 and then the Conservative amendments relating to schedule 6. What would happen next? I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has threatened to withdraw the Bill if that happens, and I take his threat seriously. However, he probably would have no need to do that. Given that he would have the powers but not the duty, all that he would have to do would be to make it known that he would not exercise his powers to require universities to charge a regulated fee. Universities could thus charge whatever the Secretary of State deemed acceptable—irrespective of what the House thinks. Hon. Members should also remember that OFFA would have no bite and remain totally immobilised, so universities could thus charge huge fees, have no effective access plans and take all their students from the well-off classes so that they would have no need to dispense bursaries. Is that really what my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North is trying to achieve?

Gordon Marsden: My hon. Friend is outlining a doomsday scenario that she envisages if amendment No. 128 were passed, so it is only fair to ask whether she shares the touching faith that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) seems to have that certain universities would play ball and go ahead with an access programme, not least given that many in the Russell group take an alternative view.

Anne Campbell: I am heartened by the way in which universities have responded to even the mere mention of OFFA by introducing much better access and outreach plans than they have ever had. I know that that applies to my own university as well as many others. Removing the teeth of OFFA would not lead to an immediate withdrawal of such plans, but I believe that they would wither on the vine in time.

Harry Barnes: rose—

Annabelle Ewing: rose—

Anne Campbell: I give way to the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing).

Annabelle Ewing: Given what the hon. Lady said earlier this afternoon, if next year's Labour party manifesto contains a commitment or undertaking not to introduce primary legislation to lift the cap on top-ups, does she expect anyone to believe it?

Anne Campbell: I understand the Liberal Democrat position—[Hon. Members: "She is not a Liberal Democrat."] I apologise; I meant the Scottish nationalist position. The hon. Lady has to accept that the situation is difficult. Universities are in severe financial straits. In those circumstances, it is necessary to look hard at what we can do to raise finance for them. As someone who has been in opposition, I can say with confidence that it is easy for Opposition parties to say anything and promise everything. She will never be put in the position of delivering on her promises.

Harry Barnes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Anne Campbell: I am about to finish.
	I cannot possibly support amendment No. 128 and I hope that my hon. Friends will not do so either. I hope that amendments Nos. 129 and 130 will receive support, and that if there is a chance to vote on new clause 6 that it, too, will be supported.

Robert Jackson: I want to explain briefly why I shall vote with the Government to secure the Bill's passage, which in contrast to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), I want to succeed.
	I do not want to rehearse the arguments, which have become familiar. Instead, I want to address a word or two of explanation to my party—[Hon. Members: "Where are they?"] I am sorry that so few of my hon. Friends are in the Chamber. My interpretation of their absence is that this is a case of bad conscience.
	Both as a democrat and a Conservative Member of Parliament, I am delighted by the renewed will to win that we have seen in the Conservative party since the change of leadership. I salute the leadership of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Our two-party system requires both an effective Opposition and a serious alternative Government. However, I am concerned about the collateral damage that will arise from too bald-headed a pursuit of that will to win, which in itself is a good will to have. I am reminded of a remark by Stanley Baldwin about Lloyd George. He said that he was a dynamic force, and a dynamic force is a terrible thing. What I have is a choice between party interest and national interest. It is right, in such a situation, to take the national view.
	Let me say a few words about the collateral damage that will arise if the amendments are carried and the Bill collapses. The effect on universities would be the postponement of the issue until after the next general election, which gives us two possible hypotheses. The first is that the Conservative party wins. In the process of trying to score points against the Government, it has got into a position from which it cannot escape making a manifesto commitment to oppose the principle of paying university fees. That would be the basis on which it would have to conduct its policy in government. There could be no question of a Conservative Government introducing fees in the next Parliament, and it is likely that it would not happen in the Parliament after that. So we would have at least 10 years in which university fees would not be possible.
	We do not know anything about the alternative policy of the Conservative party. I do not think that there is a serious alternative, for reasons that I set out on Second Reading. What we do know about Conservative policy is what my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Chancellor, has said, which is that universities are not a priority. They fall outside the priority for schools and health, and training and universities will be cut. We definitely know that about Conservative policy. I have to ask myself: what will be left of our university system after a further 10 years of starvation during which a Conservative Government forbid what are in law private institutions from charging fees to their customers?
	I turn to my second hypothesis, and that is that the Labour party wins the next general election. I think that we can exclude the hypothesis of a Liberal Democrat win. I assume that the Prime Minister will continue to lead the Labour party. I assume also that the present Secretary of State for Education and Skills will be an important contributor to the Labour party manifesto. I think that the Labour party would commit itself at the next election to introduce fees. Incidentally, I think that it was a great mistake not to have been more honest with the public during the last election. But there is a saying in the Bible about the "sinner that repenteth".
	If the Government lose today, I think that there would be such a commitment in the Labour party's next manifesto. Listening to the debate within the Labour party, it is clear that there is broad consensus for that. People have heard the arguments and have taken them on board. I think that Labour would probably enact such a reform after the next election, but that would mean either a two or even a three-year delay, and our universities cannot wait for that long. Concessions would probably be involved, which would constrain the future of our universities even more than this Bill would do. I regret those constraints but I accept them as being politically necessary. It would probably also lead to an increase in the cost of concessions and subsidies to students, which I and the Select Committee consider unnecessary. For example, there is the interest rate subsidy, which the Select Committee has said is not justified. I do not think that it is justified even though it was introduced by a Conservative Government.

Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he supports the proposal for a cap on raising the top-up fee or whether he supports the Russell group's position of allowing prestige universities to charge what the market will bear?

Robert Jackson: It is probably necessary that there should be a cap if the Bill is to get through Parliament. I think that in due course that cap should be raised. I believe that that experience will show that it will be possible to raise the cap without any of the adverse consequences that many Labour Members, and even Conservative Members, affect to fear.
	My conclusion, based on the hypothesis that Labour wins the next election with a manifesto committing itself to this legislation, is that there would be a delay and there would probably be constraints and concessions that would make the deal for the universities rather less satisfactory than the deal that the Bill offers.

Gordon Marsden: The hon. Gentleman is even-handedly and fairly describing potential hypotheses. He rightly talks about the need of the universities for funding now. Has he heard Members on either side of the House at any stage advance a coherent and cohesive argument for an alternative form of funding that would ring-fence and guarantee the universities the money that they need over the next two to three years?

Robert Jackson: This is a problem of any system of co-payment, but we must start facing it because co-payment is part of the future of our public services. Co-payment involves co-operation between the private and public sectors. It can be objected to any system of co-payment, that as private income rises, public income will be cut. But we must find a way of trusting one another to make such systems work. They work perfectly well in many countries throughout the world and there is no reason why they should not be able to work in Britain.
	I turn to a second area of collateral damage. I am also concerned—some people may say it is a bit above my pay grade—about collateral damage to the interests of the Conservative party. If the amendment is carried, I think that it will be bad news for my party because it will mean that its behaviour will be noticed. If it is not carried, I rather hope that people will soon forget what we have been doing.
	It is generally agreed that the battleground at the next election will relate to public services. Speaking with a certain detachment as someone who does not propose to stand again, I am struck by the enormous convergence of views in these matters that has emerged between the parties in this place. All or most are agreed on the need for reforms in our public services and the way in which they work. All or most are agreed that these reforms should involve decentralisation and that they should, above all, involve more choice and more tailoring of the service to individuals who use the service. There is also a general consensus about levels of taxation, and that we are reaching the limits of the tax burdens that we can put on people. Even the Liberal Democrats now accept that.
	The Government's proposals for universities draw the logical conclusions from those facts and this convergence of views. What depresses me is that the Conservative party, which makes all the arguments for reform, decentralisation and tailoring services more to users' needs, flinches from drawing the appropriate conclusion. That will not go unnoticed by serious people.
	We are living in a post-ideological age. The ideological mountain ranges have collapsed. We have a flat political landscape. People are much interested in competence, leadership and consistency. There will be collateral damage to the Conservatives' reputation among many thinking people because of the line that we are taking on this matter, which a lot of people regard as simply disreputable. I salute the animal spirits and the revived will to win in my party. I like to see the Conservative party with its head down and its dander up, rushing at the goal. The trouble is that today it is rushing at its own goal.

John Grogan: It is a life of ups and downs as a so-called Labour Back-Bench rebel trying to stick to the manifesto. It is important not to become paranoid. When I saw the headline in The Guardian this morning—"the Government cracks down on persistent offenders; surveillance will be used"—I was momentarily alarmed and, in preparing my defence, was anxious to say that I have rebelled against the Government on only one other issue. I was then mightily relieved to see that the Home Secretary was planning to crack down on violent criminals, rather than Labour rebels.
	There are carrots as well as sticks, and the night before the House previously voted on the Bill, I was invited to dinner by three Cabinet Ministers. That has not happened before. Seriously, I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the way that he has conducted this whole debate. I have tried to attend as many of his seminars as possible. I now appreciate a little better how Maoist re-education worked all those years ago, but I thank him for his courtesy throughout this process.
	I want to talk briefly about a deal about which the House may be interested. We have heard a lot about deals, but only one deal matters in this process: the deal that we all solemnly made with the electorate at the last election. All three major parties said in their manifestos that they were against variable top-up fees. We said that for very good reasons.

Alan Johnson: As I understand the logic of my hon. Friend's argument, a fixed fee set at a level that we choose—let us say £3,000—would not break the manifesto commitment. Indeed, we would be welcomed with open arms on the streets. However, if we say that less than £3,000 can be charged, it is somehow a great betrayal. I am confused by that argument.

John Grogan: I have never said that I support £3,000 fees. I am glad that my right hon. Friend is thinking about the circumstances if amendment No. 128 is passed, because I always suspected that there is a plan B. He is obviously putting his considerable intellectual powers into considering what will happen if that amendment or those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) are passed. I am pleased that, under those circumstances, as a responsible Minister, he will not throw the toys out of the pram and that he will return with proposals on what the fee should be.
	Why have we gone back on that pledge? Some interesting arguments have been advanced. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the rapid pace of economic change since the last election. We have heard an awful lot about the increased number of Korean students. None of those are fundamental reasons why we should change our mind on this very important issue.
	We have heard a lot about concessions, but let us remember that some concessions have not been made. I well remember my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saying on television—I think that it was on "Newsnight"—that he would bet his mortgage that fees would not rise above £3,000 for 10 years. We are now told that it is a marvellous concession that fees will not be raised beyond that level until 2009—three years after the system begins. We were told at one point that there would be a universal bursary scheme, which would apply to every university equally. That offer was made to Universities UK, apparently. Throughout this process, Universities UK has made the parliamentary Labour party look like a great democracy. Ivor Crewe and the leaders of Universities UK have suppressed dissent. They did not even put that offer to the rest of the universities.
	The grants are welcome. Under the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and amendment No. 128, the grants would remain. Let us not forget that the son or daughter of a postman and a nurse would get no grant or fee remission. Those are the very people whose choices would be distorted if the fee level were raised, as it inevitably would be. All the Russell group of universities are not talking about £3,000 or £4,000. The logic of the system is that fees would rise rapidly to £9,000 or £10,000 by 2009.

Peter Bradley: Does my hon. Friend not accept that the only way the cap can be lifted to any amount—£9,000, £10,000, £6,000 or £7,000—is if he and his colleagues in the House consent that it should be changed? Does he not have any confidence in himself and his colleagues to control the cap?

John Grogan: I have seen how the debate has gone over the past three or four months. I assume that in 2009 we will have an intellectual debate and we will all be able to make up our own mind. There will be no talk of supping with the devil, colluding and so on. We all know what sort of atmosphere the debate would take place in. We have only to listen to the Russell group and Professor Nicholas Barr.
	I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House. I end by appealing to my colleagues. We are discussing a matter of principle. If the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge is called, I urge support for it. However, it is unlikely to be put to the vote because of the absence of parliamentary support, so we shall be down to amendment No. 128. It is spurious to argue that because the consequential amendments were signed by a particular person, we should not vote for the main amendment. Either we are colluding or we are not. On a matter of principle, I urge all hon. Members who have spoken so long and so loud from the Labour Benches against top-up fees to take courage and vote with their convictions. Vote for amendment No. 128 if it is put to the House tonight by the Speaker.

James Clappison: I shall speak to the amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and on student support in general, particularly the way in which the variable fee structure is being introduced by the Government and the effect that it will have on many families.
	I am concerned about the impact on middle and lower-middle income families and those with modest levels of income. Students from those families will be adversely affected by the proposals. I want to take a little time—not too long—to consider the detail of what the Government propose to do to families on a wide range of incomes. In the previous debate, we spent some time discussing how to encourage students from non-traditional backgrounds into higher education. I do not believe that background should determine whether someone goes into higher education; that should depend upon academic ability.
	The last thing that I want is for someone from what is described as a non-traditional background with the appropriate level of ability to be deterred from going into higher education by the disincentive of the prospect of a mountain of debt for years to come. Labour Members will have to recognise that many students from non-traditional backgrounds are precisely those students from the levels of income that will be adversely affected by the proposals and find themselves faced with just that dilemma.
	For all Labour's intentions with regard to OFFA, and all OFFA's supposed good works and encouragement—much, if not all, of which is already done by the universities themselves—students will be faced with, on the one hand, what they are told by the universities, OFFA and whoever else, and on the other with the prospect of substantial levels of debt for years to come, which they will have to repay over their working lives and during their most productive period of life when they have so many other responsibilities—buying a home, starting a family and so on. I want to speak out on behalf of those students and families today because their voice should be heard. I fail to see just what imposing those debts on those families will do to encourage students into university.
	Yes, it is right that under the Government's proposals there will be help for families on lower incomes. There is help now. But to benefit from the help that the Government are offering in future, students must come from families with very modest incomes indeed. There is help for the poor, but it is fair and accurate to say that it is help for the very poorest. Those who come from families with incomes just a little above that level will lose out. I invite Labour Members to pay a little more attention—

David Lepper: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Clappison: If the hon. Gentleman will just allow me to finish that point, I will happily give way.
	I should like Labour Members to pay attention to the thresholds at which help is available for students under the Government's proposals, because it is a material factor in this debate that has not yet been sufficiently addressed. When hon. Members hear the Government talk of help and promises for the future, they must remember—to echo the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis)—that, today, students from families with joint incomes of £20,970 pay nothing at all. All of their fees are remitted. It is only above that level that they start to pay fees. To be fair to the Government, it must also be borne in mind that at present fees are paid up front, but in future they will be paid upon graduation, and I make that distinction. However, taking that into account, it is appropriate to look at the comparison between the help that is available now and the help that will be available in future, and the very much higher costs that students will have to pay as a result of the £3,000 fee.
	The Government have talked a lot about the full higher education grant and getting that into the hands of students. It is right that that help will be there, but—I will give way to the Minister if he wishes to confirm this—the threshold for the full higher education grant is £15,970, substantially below the present level at which fees are remitted altogether. Between those two amounts there will be help, but it is on a sliding scale and it will diminish. That means that unless university bursaries fully compensate students, which they are not required to do under the Government's proposals, students from families with joint incomes of between £15,970 and £20,970 will pay for the cost of their education for the first time, unless university bursaries are given to help to bring them up to the full amount.
	Even more serious than that, because help is now available below £20,970, in future, beyond a new threshold of £22,270, support for students under the Government's proposals falls off a cliff edge. The support goes down and down and the amount that students have to pay through the tuition fees remains the same. Therefore, a big gap opens up and students are faced with a real prospect of substantial debts way into the future. The Government give a small amount of help now for incomes above £22,270, but expect students to pay an awful lot more on graduation.
	To take one example—it is apposite because it comes from the Government's own document on the grant system—under the present system, a student from a family with a joint income of £25,000—which might comprise a manual worker with a wife who works part-time, and they would soon reach that income level—will over three years pay £1,500 for that student's education. That is an up-front figure; it is the current total figure for three years. As soon as the new system of tuition fees is introduced, a student from a family with a £25,000 income will pay—this is the net figure, taking help into account—£6,300 on graduation, which is a more than fourfold increase. [Interruption.] It is on graduation, but in comparison with the current £1,500, a payment of £6,300 on graduation is not a very good deal. As the Liberal Democrat spokesman mentioned, anyone putting the money in the bank would have to find a pretty wonderful rate of interest to help them.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Clappison: I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), as I indicated I would do.

David Lepper: I thank the hon. Gentleman for remembering that I attempted to intervene on him. He suggested that very few people would benefit from the student support system that the Government are introducing. The figures that I have from the Library suggest that 40.86 per cent. of families with youngsters in my constituency will qualify for the full grant, while some 77.67 per cent. will qualify for a full or partial grant. Has he done similar research in respect of his constituency, and does he agree that the figures that I have quoted are by no means negligible?

James Clappison: The hon. Gentleman needs to look at the help that is now available—I hope that I have made this point sufficiently well; I may not have made it clearly enough—as compared with the debts that will be incurred later. The figures that I have given are net figures. I know that a £25,000 joint income in the south of England in a commuter-belt constituency just outside London is modest indeed. Families at that income level are struggling to house themselves and pay for the cost of living. Students from such families are far from coming from well-off backgrounds.

Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman says that he would like more generous repayment terms than the Government are offering in the Bill. May I remind him that the last Conservative manifesto said:
	"With us, graduates will not have to pay anything unless and until their income tops £20,000 per year"?
	Is that still Conservative party policy? If so, how will it be financed, given the party's commitment to reduce expenditure on higher education?

James Clappison: As I said, the present position is that families on just above £20,000 do not pay anything at all. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that going back over previous manifestos is the strongest suit for the Labour party today.

Alan Whitehead: I think that, perhaps slightly unintentionally, the hon. Gentleman misled the House in his claims about what students get at the moment over the course of their student careers. They are remitted £1,125 a year, but under the new arrangements they will receive a maximum of £3,000 up front a year. He rightly said that that still requires the payment of some debt, but has he taken into account the fact that that debt will deteriorate in relative value over a period, whereas the up-front money is valued at current rates? I am sure that he has taken that into account in his calculations, as it makes a 40 per cent. difference in his figures.

James Clappison: My calculations were based on a written answer given to me by the Minister, who told me that, under the present arrangements, there is a fee remission of £656 from the student each year. Aggregating the balance produces a figure of £1,500 over three years. The other figure that I used came from the Government's own document seeking to illustrate the position under its proposals. It said that for a family with a joint income of £25,000, there would be a grant for fees in future of £900. Over three years, that amounts to £2,700, but the cost of the education is £3,000 each year, which amounts to £9,000, so on the Government's own figures provided in written answers, the final total is £6,300. The fee system is there for everybody to see, and it costs more than four times as much as the current system. It is a fair point that that sum will be repaid in the future rather than its being an upfront fee, but I have taken account of that. Any Labour Member who tries to persuade a student that paying £6,300 in three years' time is better than paying £1,500 now has a promising future career on daytime television selling debt consolidation.

Tim Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the total debt that must eventually be repaid will be inflation-linked? Labour Members may argue that that represents a discount against the commercial rate of interest and is therefore attractive on those grounds, but the real resource cost to the Exchequer of supporting students in the future will rise even more—they cannot have it both ways.

James Clappison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although it has been said that the weekly repayments will be modest, the sum itself is substantial. If the repayments are modest, the debt will extend over years and years, which is a point that students will take into account.
	Labour Members must face up to the point made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough that students who go into important lower-paid public service jobs will spend much longer repaying their debts than those who go into higher-paid employment, which will disincentivise students from taking on socially useful jobs such as teaching on graduation. That depends on students graduating, because facing such debt in future will be a substantial disincentive to students from such families to go to university.

Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Clappison: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has only come into the Chamber recently, and if he had been here a little bit longer he would know that I have been generous in giving way.
	The amount of help given by universities is an important point that has been referred to and must be taken into account, and I tabled a written question about it to which the Minister responded. Bursaries will be available to students, and some universities will award bursaries to students from families with an income level greater than that required by the Government, which is £15,970. Universities are not required to pay bursaries to students from families with incomes above that level—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—but some universities say that they will do so, which is all well and good.
	Relative to other UK institutions—I say that for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson)—Cambridge university has put forward the most generous scheme, which accords with the fact that it is an extremely wealthy institution. Looking across the list of other institutions—again, the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—no university other than Cambridge has made a clear commitment to give bursary help to students from families with incomes above the £22,000 threshold. I have not seen any specific commitments in the literature that I have received from the Minister, but even if there were a specific commitment to provide some help, it would have to be substantial help indeed to make up for the huge extra debts.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on the threshold limit. All universities must give at least a £300 bursary to students from families with incomes up to the threshold limit at which we set the £2,700 grant, which is £33,000 a year. Cambridge, Imperial, Exeter and Surrey universities say that they will give bursaries up to that level, and not the £22,000 level that he quoted. I believe, although I am not certain, that Exeter and Imperial universities have gone beyond that, and Surrey is the latest university to announce that it will go down the same route.

James Clappison: I am sure that the Minister is right, but his written answer in February stated that Government proposals do not require a bursary to be given to students from families with incomes of more than £15,970. It is not clear from my correspondence with the Minister or from what has been set out by Universities UK that there will be automatic help for students up to those levels. I will not read out the letters, but no university other than Cambridge has spoken about the threshold going above £22,000. The Minister is nodding. I accept that he has made it clear that help will be available up to the amount of £15,970—in some cases £4,000, or at least the £300 that is required by the Bill.
	However, that is not my complaint. My complaint is on behalf of families on lower and middle incomes of between £22,000 and £33,000. In my constituency, or anywhere in the country, £22,000 is a modest joint family income on which people may struggle. Students from those families will be daunted by the prospect of a debt of this order of magnitude—thousands of pounds stretching into the future. In response to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons), if we gave students—certainly, students in my constituency—a choice between the new system and the old system, they would not queue up to take the new one. It will cost students an awful lot of money, and it will be a particularly hard blow for middle-income families.
	The Government have got it wrong. The introduction of variable fees is oppressive to such families and I am afraid that it will act as disincentive. I do not like discrimination, but I do not like disincentives either. I hope that Labour Members will exercise their consciences over that question. I hope that they will also consider the loss to the country that will result if those students respond to the blandishments that they are receiving from German and American universities to go abroad, where they may receive more generous help or not have to pay any fees at all. The House should seriously consider the fact that this measure will be a substantial blow to a huge wedge of families on middle incomes.

Peter Bradley: Like many other, but not all, Members of this House, I had a privileged education, and I have been privileged ever since in the salaries that I have earned and the jobs that I have done. Having been one of the 6 per cent. of young people who had the opportunity—although many more had the ability—to go to university in the early 1970s, I want my privileges to be other people's rights. That is why I joined my party and why I welcome the Bill, or rather what it has become.
	I make no pretence about variability. A free market in higher education would indeed entrench privilege—that is why I originally opposed the concept. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) is right. Under a free market model, the elite universities would get richer at the expense of the poorer universities. If that were still the position, I might be attracted to amendment No. 128, but what is now on offer is a firmly regulated market, if it is a market at all. We are no longer talking about top-up fees, but about top-down fees. We are no longer talking about variability, but about a fixed fee with a discount. In my view, which I believe is shared by others, most, if not all universities, across most, if not all their courses, will charge £3,000. There will be no meaningful market in higher education. The variability, such as it is, is likely to be in hundreds of pounds, not thousands of pounds. It will be an issue for school leavers when they consider which university to attend, but in no way a decisive issue.
	The manifesto commitment must be taken seriously, but it was written before we went out on the doorstep at the last general election. Perhaps my hon. Friends will contradict me, but I cannot think of an issue that was raised more frequently, especially in middle-class areas in my constituency, than the resentment, especially of parents, of having to pay an up-front fee to send their children to university. The up-front contribution makes parents wonder whether they can afford to send their children to university. The Bill abolishes the up-front fee and we should celebrate that. It shows the way in which we have listened and responded to our constituents.
	The language of the debate in the past year or so has been misleading, and we are all responsible for that. We should talk not about student debt but investment in the future. A mortgage is a debt; for many people, it is a lifetime debt. The rights and privileges that the previous Government extended to people under the right-to-buy policy gave them an opportunity to contract a debt, which many regretted when boom turned to bust. That problem will not confront graduates, who, if they lose their jobs in future or take a dip in salary, will no longer have to repay their tuition fee contribution. That is in stark contrast to the debt that the Conservative party invited hundreds of thousands of people to enter into. Those people came to regret it when they found themselves in mortgage arrears and their homes were repossessed.

Harry Barnes: It is certainly a question of investing in the future, but another question is: who should do the investing? Should it be done by society as a whole or individual students?

Peter Bradley: My hon. Friend is right. Society as a whole should make the investment, and that is what we are doing. The taxpayer bears 75 per cent. of the cost of sending a student to university. However, we must choose whether we are content for 6, 10, 20 or 30 per cent. of the young people in our communities who are academically qualified to take up university places to do that. Are we content to cap ambition at 10 per cent. or at 20 per cent.? Should we have a quota, as the Conservatives suggest? Or should we want the best for most of our young people? We should not cap their ambition, because they have a right to university education if they are qualified for it, and our economy needs their skills.

Tim Boswell: Before the hon. Gentleman abandons the point about mortgages, does he believe that mortgage providers will take an interest in whether the applicant holds a student loan, with its obligations to repay? If they take no interest, will they not be acting irresponsibly in offering money?

Peter Bradley: A leading mortgage association has already confirmed that it has no problem with the proposal. Mortgage providers will take an interest in the earning capacity of those who wish to have a mortgage, and a degree significantly advances that capacity. Data suggest that graduates who enter employment have an immediate advantage of £4,000 a year over those who do so without the benefit of a degree.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North suggested that variability would discriminate against the modern universities. I challenged him about that in an intervention. The Government have reintroduced maintenance grants, which is a huge step forward, not only for 33 per cent. of students but especially for those from low-income backgrounds. The Government are now taking responsibility for paying those grants and not obliging the universities to do that. That has lifted a difficult burden from the universities with the highest intakes of students from low-income backgrounds and allowed them to keep substantially more of their income from tuition fees than was originally intended. Thus the very universities that contribute most to the widening access agenda will keep most of that new income. The figures that I have seen suggest that, for example, Bournemouth will have a 50 per cent. uplift in its income from student fees, Middlesex will enjoy a 37 per cent. increase, and my nearest university, Wolverhampton, will benefit from a 20 per cent. increase. That is in contrast to the uplift for Cambridge, Oxford and the London School of Economics—which are not known for their contribution to the widening access agenda—which runs at less than 10 per cent.

Chris Grayling: rose—

Peter Bradley: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I want to address a point made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson about Cambridge being an asset-rich university. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will have heard my right hon. Friend the Minister citing other examples, including Surrey, Exeter and Imperial college, not all of which are cash-rich institutions, and there will be more to follow. They are offering students paying top-up fees a further £4,000, on top of the £3,000 available from the Government. That will give those students an income over three years of £21,000, and a repayment to make on graduation—on an income-contingent basis—of £9,000. That is a pretty good deal. When students and school leavers understand what is on offer in the Bill, they come to very different conclusions from those suggested by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison).

Chris Grayling: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, under the current system, a student from a less well-off background will end up with student loan debts of about £10,000? After the introduction of top-up fees, even taking grants into account, that same student will end up with debts of about £10,000. So, at the end of their university career, their financial position will be no different.

Peter Bradley: We could trade mathematics, but let me tell the hon. Gentleman why the reintroduction of maintenance grants makes such a huge difference. Although the idea of debts, mortgages—whatever we choose to call them—is an issue for everyone, our society is not half so debt averse as we might think from listening to this debate. Most of us have debts, whether through hire purchase agreements, bank overdrafts or credit cards. Debt is an issue, I grant the hon. Gentleman that, but one of the principal reasons why young people with academic qualifications from low-income and working-class backgrounds have not taken up places at university, even when they are available—which, under the Conservatives, they certainly would not be—is that they cannot afford the up-front student living costs. They have no savings, and their parents have no savings with which to sub them through university.
	The return to the maintenance grant is therefore a measure of which all Labour Members should be proud. It is radical, progressive and empowering, and it will allow universities to welcome those students into higher education, provided that the places that we can pay for through the tuition fees are available. It will also enable people to whom the privilege of going to university has been denied for decades to take up the opportunity to enrich their lives, to enhance their earning capacity, and to underpin our economy for generations to come. That is why the return of the student grant is a crucial part of the Bill.

David Rendel: I want to return to the point about whether the new universities or the more privileged ones will gain the most. The hon. Gentleman says that, as a proportion of their income, the new universities will gain more than the richer ones. That is simply because the richer ones currently have a much greater income. Some universities will, by the hon. Gentleman's own admission, charge less per student and therefore bring in less in fees per student. I would suggest that those will tend to be the poorer universities, and because they will bring in less per student, the gap will widen in terms of the amount of money per student that universities have to spend.

Peter Bradley: There is a fundamental misunderstanding on the Liberal Benches. [Interruption.] I was just inviting colleagues to imagine what, among many misunderstandings, that could be. On this particular issue, the reason why modern universities will benefit disproportionately from the steps that the Government have taken to relieve them of the responsibility to pay out in grants what they receive in income is that they are undergraduate teaching led, whereas other universities, principally those in the Russell group, if they are not research led, at least have a high proportion of their funding vested in research. Universities that specialise in educating precisely those young people to whom I have been referring should and will benefit, and will be rewarded by their contribution to widening access.

Gordon Marsden: My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the mainstream universities, which are precisely those that are most likely to attract first-generation students. Does he agree that that is why the Campaign for Mainstream Universities has issued a note today saying that any vote that risks the withdrawal of this Bill will be a vote against widening participation and social inclusion?

Peter Bradley: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that important statement. He also gives me an opportunity to use a line that I would have used on the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman if he had allowed me to intervene. He talked about divisions of opinion among vice-chancellors. Of course, he is right: there is no unanimity among vice-chancellors on this issue. Vice-chancellors are unanimous, however, in their contempt for the Conservative party's policy on higher education when it has one, and in their contempt for its opportunism when it has not. That is the unanimity that the Conservative party has managed to engender in the higher education community.
	The benefits that I have outlined are those of a Bill that is radically different from the White Paper, which was rightly and roundly criticised until more or less the new year. I want to pay tribute to Ministers and give them credit for the fact that they have not only listened but responded to constructive criticism from colleagues. They recognised the argument that the real disincentive to working-class school leavers is not debt but upfront fees and living costs. The support package of £3,000 is therefore extremely welcome. Colleagues argued about the adverse impacts of modern universities bearing those costs, and the Government are now bearing the cost of those grants. We argued for the conversion of fee remission to grant, and we had an undertaking from Ministers. That was a brave step, as it meant changing a publicly held position. It was the right decision and I am grateful for it, as future generations of undergraduates and their families will be. We argued that elite universities must broaden their student base, and it is OFFA's task to ensure that they do.
	The Liberal Democrat spokesman contrasted the £4,000 bursaries that Cambridge and other universities will offer with the situation at Wolverhampton. He said that Wolverhampton university would not be able to afford the bursaries. He is probably right. But Wolverhampton's intake, depending on what statistic one reads, is either 47 per cent. or 75 per cent.—or somewhere between those two figures—lower-income students. It will not be required to pay those bursaries, and it will not need to do so. The need and pressure should be on the Russell group of universities, which year on year have signally failed to embrace the broadening access agenda—the latest figures show a reduction in working-class students with academic qualifications being allowed to study at those institutions.

Phil Willis: Under the Bill, if Wolverhampton university, 47 per cent. of whose students are from the three lower socio-economic groups, charges the full £3,000 fee, those students will each be eligible for a £2,700 grant from the state, and the university will have to provide £300. Given that it will have to find grants for 47 per cent. of its intake, compared with Oxford, which will have to find grants only for the 9 per cent. of its students who are from those socio-economic groups, how on earth will that benefit Wolverhampton?

Peter Bradley: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the Liberal Democrats' fitness for government. In an ideal world, Wolverhampton would not have to bear the cost of the £300. What the hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate is that it now has a very high ratio of income that it can keep, certainly compared with what was originally proposed, which will boost its funding—I gave him the figure of 20 per cent. That is why, despite its reservations about variability, Wolverhampton supports the Bill. It will be good for the university, good for its current intake of students, and good for students who are yet to go there. OFFA's task will be to ensure that universities that are not meeting the objectives perform better and achieve more, which is why I support amendment No. 129.
	We have argued for a three-year review. As the Government have conceded, that is incredibly important. Three years after the new arrangements are introduced, we shall be far better placed to judge whether they have delivered the benefits that we expect them to deliver. If we decide that they have not, it will be up to us to do something about it. I cannot understand why some Members do not have enough confidence in themselves and their colleagues to change, or to endorse, policy if that is the right thing to do. This measure is no different from any other in that regard. Both sides of the House will be whipped, just as they are in the case of other Bills. It is an insult to say that—it would also be unlawful—we will fetter the discretion of a future Parliament because we do not have enough self-confidence to believe that we can either sustain or, if need be, change our own thinking. That is a specious and dangerous argument.
	We will have a debate in both Houses, and for that reason I strongly support amendment No. 130. We must be able to take account of the three-year review and all the other information that comes our way. We need a motion that we can debate, amend and vote on.
	The amendments that the Government have suggested they will accept, along with the huge gains made on Second Reading, have significantly strengthened the Bill. They have strengthened Parliament's control over the future of tuition fees, they have strengthened the Government's obligation to police those provisions in the "duty and power"amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), and they have strengthened the regulator's powers to enforce the widening of access not just to universities already subscribing and contributing to that principle, but to all universities, no matter how grand they think they are.
	The Bill is not perfect. No one wants to pay the additional taxes proposed by the Liberal Democrats; no one wants to pay the additional charges that we propose. This, however, is not just the best package on the table, or the only package. It is a good package—a radical, progressive set of measures that will help to boost standards in our universities, underpin their competitiveness, and create opportunities for working-class school leavers who never had such opportunities before and, without this package, would not have them in the future. I am not just prepared to vote for the Bill; I shall be proud to do so.

Annabelle Ewing: On behalf of the Scottish Nationalists and Plaid Cymru, I rise to support amendment No. 128, which would delete what I believe to be iniquitous proposals to introduce variable top-up fees. In my view, they are wrong in principle. They will create a two-tier system, and will treat university education as if it were just another commodity in the marketplace. I think that my opinions reflect widespread concern among parents, students and university principals throughout Scotland. Those people have a great fear of the negative impact of the proposals on the university sector in Scotland. That issue was highlighted in the report of the Scottish Parliament's cross-party Enterprise and Culture Committee, which was produced in December 2003. The committee had spent three months taking evidence from all relevant parties and sectors, and the report's conclusion was that the top-up fee proposals in the Bill would have an adverse impact on Scottish higher education.
	That conclusion has been echoed by the majority of university principals in Scotland, and has even been admitted, although very late in the day, by Scotland's Labour First Minister. The key issue is that because of the Barnett formula, if more private money is levered into the university sector south of the border, that will create in the longer term a chronic funding gap in Scotland because there will be no Barnett consequentials for the Scottish university sector. That is widely accepted in Scotland and is the view of the majority of university principals there, so I do not know quite why the Minister is shaking his head. Perhaps he has not been in communication with the university principals in Scotland.
	The report's conclusion is that there will be a significant and detrimental impact on research in Scotland's universities, which at the moment have an excellent reputation, and deservedly so. There will also, of course, be a significant impact on recruitment. Those facts are incontrovertible. Notwithstanding that, on Second Reading, we saw 46 Scottish Labour MPs troop into the Lobby to support the Government and vote against Scotland's interests. We also saw the solo Scottish Tory MP sit on his hands, although he has managed to vote on some measures that have no impact whatever on Scotland, such as the Mersey Tunnels Bill. The key issue is what the Scottish MPs will do today.
	We have heard much in the debate about international examples, and I asked the Prime Minister at about the time of Second Reading why on earth, if a country such as Ireland could use its powers to abolish all tuition fees, as it did in the 1990s, and secure a participation rate of more than 50 per cent., he could not secure such a result in England. In his answer, interestingly, he pointed to the example of New Zealand, but as we have heard today, that was perhaps not a good example to use in seeking to strengthen the Prime Minister's case.
	I shall keep my intervention brief, because I appreciate that other Members want to contribute, but the key issue for Scotland today is whether the Scottish Labour MPs will put Scotland's interests and their constituents' interests ahead of the political interests of the UK Prime Minister. Is the solo Scottish Tory MP once again going to sit on his hands and abstain? Vital Scottish interests are at stake, and it is noteworthy that not one Scottish MP has even sought to listen to any part of today's debate, with the notable exception of the Father of the House. The House might not know that he is the only Scottish MP to be a university rector—he is the rector of Edinburgh university, and chairs its court. The Father of the House, well knowing the views of the university sector in Scotland, took the principled position on Second Reading of voting against the Bill.
	Given that vital Scottish interests are at stake tonight, I hope that the Scottish MPs who voted with the Government last time will reflect a little further, and will put Scottish interests ahead of those of the Prime Minister. If they fail to do so, their betrayal will not be forgotten or forgiven in Scotland.

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friends have discussed matters of principle relating to manifesto commitments, and we need to reflect on that. We must reflect on the argument about top-up fees put forward at the time of the manifesto, which referred to fees on top of up-front fees. We are in a very different situation now, so I have no problem at all on that. My conscience is clear.
	I am sorry to speak against my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), whom I like enormously. He is a fine fellow. He has had a glittering career both politically and academically and, perhaps more importantly, is a football star as well. We have spoken about the principles of widening access, of increasing numbers—that is, Labour and Liberal Democrat Members have, rather than the Conservatives, who do not believe in increasing numbers—and of providing more student support. It is vital that we bear those principles in mind and make choices for individuals, for the institutions and, very importantly, for our country.
	We must make those choices for our country. Recent figures from the Institute of Employment Research show that of the 13.5 million jobs that are expected to be filled by 2012, 50 per cent.—6.8 million—will be in occupations likely to demand graduates. If we look across the world, India is churning out 1 million graduates, who at the moment are doing a lot of back-office work, but in future they will be doing development work as well, so yes they will have—

Patrick Hall: My hon. Friend is making an important point about the future estimated need for people with higher education skills. Does he not agree that those who deny the need for 50 per cent. of people to go to university are actually doing down the economy of this country, never mind those individuals who should go to university who have the ability?

Jonathan R Shaw: My hon. Friend is right. So we are talking about the individual, the institution and the country. From the individual's perspective, it is not just a 50 per cent. target; as we have heard, it is a 50 per cent. projection. We are seeing more young people achieve and we know that if a young person gets two or more A-levels they go to university. Show me the queue of parents who will line up and say, "I do not want my young son or daughter to go to university." There will not be one. We all aspire for our sons, for our daughters, and for all the young people. We have continuously increased access in recent years, and that is what we need to continue to do for the individual and for our country. Jobs that require few qualifications will not exist in future. Foundation degrees will be a very important component of the increase to 50 per cent., providing the vital technical skills for our economy.
	The issue about debt has naturally been central to our discussions in the Chamber, but we may not have discussed the fact that if a person takes on a debt to purchase a product, they want the product to be of quality. There has been a decrease in investment in our universities, and class sizes have risen. There have also been difficulties in the recruitment and retention of lecturers, whose pay is appalling. By increasing the revenue stream to universities, this measure will allow them to increase lecturers' pay to assist with recruitment and retention. That is vital because if you are graduating from university and want that qualification, you want the course to be a good quality product. We talk about the fear of debt. We know what we are talking about—

David Taylor: If a golden dawn is indeed emerging for those who work in higher education, why is it that Association of University Teachers branches throughout the country are so vigorously opposed to what is proposed in the Bill and the financial arrangements that surround it?

Jonathan R Shaw: Perhaps when that dawn, as my hon. Friend describes it, does appear, they will not be so against them. Once people see increases in their salary they will not be quite so against them, but we must take those decisions now, or we stay where we are, or we find finance from somewhere else. If my hon. Friend believes in raising taxes that is fine, but I remind him that we have had issues about our manifesto commitment. We stood on a promise not to raise the top rate of tax, so where would the money come from? After all, we would be asking for a reasonable contribution—a graduate earning £18,000 a year would be asked to pay £5.19 a week. Most of my constituents would think that that was a reasonable starting point.
	If we want to invest in our young people and widen access, this is the right proposal for the country, the individuals and the institutions, which need it for their lecturers. It will provide opportunities for so many young people in our constituencies. However, it is not only the proposals on student finance that will achieve that. It will also be achieved through the Sure Start programme, investment in primary schools, and investment and improvements in secondary schools. The Bill is right for the country, the institutions and the individuals, and I hope that the House will support it.

Tim Boswell: I shall speak in favour of new clause 5, because it would remove the possibility of charging for tuition fees, which would have an unacceptable impact on students and would be unstable in prospect—as I shall make clear later. My immediate concern is to welcome one aspect of the change in the Labour party. It has begun to take on board some of the principles of a market system. Nor does it wish to put up taxes—as has just been pointed out—at least not by the front door. However, that is not a debate for today.
	I find it odd, however, that the Labour party dissociates itself completely from the impact of the price mechanism. The Bill will impose a charge for the tuition of students, and the fact of that charge—however moderated or explained away—will have an impact on students. If a charge is levied for something, it is less attractive as a result.

Robert Jackson: My hon. Friend, for whom I have great admiration, congratulates the Labour party on its conversion to market principles, but it is a little strange to do so at a time when the Conservative party is abandoning them.

Tim Boswell: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and I hope to have the chance to advert briefly to alternative means of finance, although of course this is not a Second Reading speech.
	I make the point about price in relation to disadvantaged students and the discussions they have with their parents and siblings. Any imposition of fees is likely to act as a deterrent, at least for some of them. However much the charge is removed from the time of tuition and applied to graduate level, and however much it is attenuated or made more acceptable by maintenance grants—which the present Government abolished, of course—there will be a disincentive effect.
	Before Ministers pat themselves too much on the back for their generosity, it should be remembered that some of that generosity will be financed by other students. The Government have improved the Bill, but parts of the package remain to be hammered out, with great difficulty and political angst. It will require the imposition of a charge on the universities that will have to be put back into bursaries, and they will in effect be financed by the less indigent students.

Harry Barnes: New clause 5 would remove fees for students. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of my amendments, which have not so far been debated? They also try to tackle the student debt problem and are more radical in some respects, in that they would apply to all debt, and less radical in other respects, in that they would not get rid of all the fees in one fell swoop. They would provide for a holiday from debt. What are his feelings about those amendments?

Tim Boswell: The hon. Gentleman has introduced his argument without having to make a speech to it. The short answer is that I am aware of his ingenious proposals. They deserve consideration, but I do not, on balance, come down in favour of them. However, at least they encourage discussion on the matter.
	There will be problems for less privileged students, and I am equally concerned about the problems faced by people whose families are on a moderate income, which were set out eloquently and expertly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). There will be an impact on such people's families. Their parents may continue to make a contribution, but if they do not, it will add to the student's debt on graduation.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when graduates' salaries reach the point at which the repayment of student debt is triggered, they are likely to be taking on other commitments such as marriage, a family and a mortgage? The collective effect of the debts is likely to create a disincentive to enter a college course in the first place.

Tim Boswell: I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend says. Her point was enshrined in an intervention that I made on the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) in which I pointed out that mortgage providers must take account of the overall package of debt.

David Lepper: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a statement made by the Council of Mortgage Lenders? It says that it
	"recognises that many graduates will still be paying off their student loans at the time they consider buying their first home. On the basis of the current repayment schedule for student loans, the existence of an outstanding student loan is unlikely to have any negative bearing on the graduate's ability to obtain a mortgage."

Tim Boswell: I accept that the council does not wish to discourage people from applying for a mortgage, but whether lenders will be prepared to make well-founded offers on that basis is a different matter. The debt will be a debt that must be serviced by somebody.

David Rendel: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I asked the Prime Minister a question on that matter. I pointed out that one of my constituents who has a debt of a mere £12,000, which is much lower than the likely debts of the future, has been turned down for a mortgage simply on the ground of student debt.

Tim Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out.
	I do not think that enough has been said about the Bill's implications for students on long courses, which I am worried about. Not all those people will go on to be in the private sector, and their burdens will be substantial.
	Let us consider alternatives. It is a matter of record—I do not want to debate it with my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), for example—that when we were in government, we ran a system that did not charge fees, but that was open to fees. There was a slight disagreement with the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) about that, but the issue did not arise except on one brief occasion. At that time, we were still able to expand the higher education sector substantially. That approach would provide for significant access to higher education and I shall defend it on another occasion.
	An alternative heroic approach, which is not ruled out by the Bill, would be to go for an all-private system—some universities occasionally talk about that. A university that was prepared to forgo all public funding could go private and rely exclusively on fees or other forms of private income. It could introduce needs-blind support if that could be financed. It is highly questionable, however, whether that would meet the access concerns of the Minister and Conservative Members and whether it could be introduced, because there would undoubtedly be consequences for the student body. However, I emphasise that that approach would not be ruled out by the Bill.
	If universities find themselves in difficulties, despite the package, the Minister does not rule out the possibility of them moving towards unregulated parts of the sector—similar to the way in which public utilities buy businesses that are unregulated, if I may put it that way. I am thinking about part-time students—we had a constructive debate about that in Committee—postgraduates and overseas students. There is nothing to stop a university rebalancing its intake, which some have suggested they might do.
	I was sorry not to be in the Chamber to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage. Some important avenues could be explored in relation to the contribution that future employers and graduates can make to stimulate alumni contributions and endowments more generally.
	One of my major concerns about stability is not simply the financial stability of the system and whether it will deliver. I am entitled to be at least slightly sceptical about Labour Members' claims. It is interesting that they inherited a system from us that was delivering a more than one-third participation without fees. They announced that it was necessary to make changes, so they introduced tuition fees and abolished maintenance grants. They came up with a system that was supposed to solve everything, yet six years later they are back to the drawing board with a repeat solution, as if the system was never viable in the first place.
	Apart from the financing costs of the system, there will be a heavy regulatory price to pay. The fees regime will come unstuck because of the huge public expenditure cost, which exceeds the value of the fees available to universities. Equally, the regulatory system will not work and will pave the way for further interference in the admissions policies of universities.
	My essential concern on the substance of the matter, as enshrined in new clause 5, is that the fees regime will break down and what has been put in by way of public expenditure to sugar the pill exceeds the amount that universities get. More to the point, the ratio will worsen over time as the level of student debt for most students increases and, ipso facto, the level of subsidised loan outstanding for each student, or for the generality of students, itself increases. Eventually, a future Chancellor will conclude that the promised loan subsidies will be unsustainable and the cost will be excessive. At that point, all bets are off.
	Another pressure that may develop—the Minister will realise that this has been implicit in the debate—is that most universities will charge the market rate. As the Select Committee explained, if they do that there will not be a free market in any substantial sense of the term. A few fees will be discounted, but universities will be subject to a growing pressure to have a higher rate so that they have a greater level of differentiation.

Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that amendment No. 130 would enable the House to decide, with a debate and by resolution, and with the possibility of amendment, how to deal with a ceiling on the fee charged after 2010? His concerns that the ceiling may well disappear and that we have much higher fees in the near future should be allayed, and I invite him to support that amendment.

Tim Boswell: I was about to conclude my remarks, and the hon. Gentleman in a sense anticipates my argument. The Government's safeguards up to 2010 are a clause thick. If they were so minded, it would take only a very short Bill to remove the cap, and I think that the pressures to do that would be irresistible. It makes no sense within the Government's own terms to have a cap of such a nature because it neither contributes enough to universities to bail them out of their financial problems nor does it drive the agenda of social justice. It fails on both counts. It would take legislation only a clause or two thick to change things. I accept the Minister's good faith on the matter; he handled the Committee with panache and made an unacceptable brew a little more acceptable. Nevertheless, Ministers' assurances are about as convincing as they were last time we debated this.
	The path will be clear irresistibly for future increases in top-up fees, which in a sense are beyond the immediate concern of present students but will form the next tranche of concerns that future students will have. That is the basis, in my view, on which the Bill is founded. If it has any supporters or friends, they are probably to be found among the 100 or so vice-chancellors, not all of whom agree but they are giving the Bill their support, fingers crossed, in the hope that it might do some good and that it will not break down while they happen to be in charge, any more than the Minister is, of this difficult and sensitive sector.
	We need to examine higher education funding but we do not need to do so through the means of charging that the Government propose in the Bill.

Jon Owen Jones: I am grateful for the chance to speak for a few minutes in a five-hour debate on an England and Wales Bill on the Welsh aspects of the measure, which have not been discussed to date. So far we have had more discussion on higher education policy in New Zealand than we have had on that in Wales.
	I intend to support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who, appropriately for this debate is my former lecturer. I do so because I take the Government at their word. I have been told by many Government sources that if I support the amendment and it is agreed to, it will wreck the Bill. That is why I am supporting it.
	Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will not understand my point of view because there are many good things in the Bill. If they listen, I will tell them why I am doing what I am. If the Bill falls as a result of my vote, I hope that it will be a salutary lesson. The Government and Parliament have abrogated their responsibility to Wales during the passage of the Bill so far.
	I oppose the idea of variable fees, in particular because of their effect upon Wales. This is an interesting test case for the limits of devolution. To what extent can we have policies that are different from the context of English policies? There will be different issues from policy to policy. On some issues, because of the effect of the market on a particular issue—this is one such issue—it is not possible to devolve effective powers, which would be implemented differently in Wales from how they would be implemented in England. I shall explain why.
	We have an extremely integrated system. About half the students in Wales are English and about half of Welsh students are in English universities. That is because there is a market already, but the Bill will increase the level of marketisation. Students have a right to move from whichever constituency they are in and from whatever side of the border. I note already that, because I am speaking about Wales, there has been a loss of interest in the Chamber. If anything, variable fees will increase marketisation, but just as price differentials between universities will influence the choices of students as between universities, price differentials between England and Wales will influence the decisions that students take in England and in Wales.
	Wales is extremely vulnerable to distortions that will come about through divergent policies. In the 2006 cohort of students, Welsh universities will be charging a £1,250 up-front tuition fee. English universities will be charging up to—the better ones will mostly be charging—£3,000. That will be a variation of £1,750 per student per year.
	If we do the mathematics, the cost to the Welsh Assembly is £48 million a year in total to subsidise its institutions for not charging the variable fee, but they will not be able to charge it for three years, so the cost is £146 million. That money must come from the Welsh block, which is the money for schools and hospitals in Wales. The assumption is that there will be no market distortion, but there clearly will be a market distortion. If Cardiff university—a Russell group university—charges the £1,250 up-front fee, whereas Bristol university charges £3,000, there will be a £5,000 difference over three years. Naturally, Cardiff university will be more attractive to those who need to pay the full amount, so there will be a distortion and English students who have to pay the full amount will move to Wales.
	Given the size of the market—690,000 students in England and 40,000 students in Wales—[Interruption.] No, sorry, I will make these points because they have not been made so far. I have to disappoint the Whips. There will be a distortion and people will move, but about half the students in Wales are already English. The number will rise, so the Welsh Assembly will be put into the perverse position of subsidising the education of the better-off English students—who would otherwise have to pay the full rates but prefer to go to Welsh universities to avoid doing so—from the money that would otherwise be spent on schools and hospitals in Wales.
	What a perverse and ridiculous position to be in, and it could be worse because Welsh universities will not be able to pay the £2,700 bursary grant, which should go to the clever, poor students who can get into university. Poor Welsh students will be unable to find places in Welsh universities because they will suffer increased competition as more English students are tempted into Welsh universities. The Welsh students will have a big incentive to try to get into English universities because that is the only place where they will be paid the grant.
	I put it to Parliament that that consideration is worthy of debate and discussion, and that the Ministers would have some comfort for me if they could explain how the Bill, which will devolve the power that causes that to happen, will work in Wales without resulting in the ridiculous position that I have tried to explain in my shortened speech.

Simon Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jon Owen Jones: I will give way once because the hon. Gentleman is another Welsh Member who has not spoken so far is this debate.

Simon Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a cogent argument. Although it is strange for me as a Welsh nationalist to say this, he is not quite correct to suggest that those arguments were not debated in Committee—they were debated. However, he is nevertheless right to make these arguments on the Floor of the House. I hope that the Minister listens carefully to what he is saying, but I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has factored something into his consideration that he has not yet mentioned. He refers to the market distortion, but there is surely a further distortion, given that the money that, in effect, will be added to the English university block grant will come directly from the fees raised in England. That will not be reflected in the Barnett formula, thus further distorting the situation.

Jon Owen Jones: That point was made by an SNP Member during the debate, so the hon. Gentleman did not need to make it a second time.
	The Bill applies to England and Wales. Every piggyback Bill applying to England and Wales has had the same problem. Ministers and Members believe that it is not their responsibility to discuss Welsh issues. It is their responsibility because the issue is not devolved and Parliament must find a better way to debate such matters.

Alan Johnson: May I intimate at the outset that the Government are prepared to accept amendments Nos. 129 and 130, with the permission of my hon. Friends who have put their names to those amendments? I shall say a little more about that in the course of my remarks.

Harry Barnes: My right hon. Friend mentioned the amendments that he will accept. Presumably, therefore, he does not accept the other amendments, including those that I tabled. It is important for me to know that, so that I can look for a procedural device whereby I can move one of the three sets of amendments in my name, which call for a student holiday from debt of 15, 10 or five years. I hoped that the Minister might be tempted by the five-year provision. I may now seek to move the amendment specifying 15 years and press it to a Division, but I will need to understand the procedural devices available to me.

Alan Johnson: I cannot help my hon. Friend with that, but as I said that the Government are prepared to accept amendments Nos. 129 and 130, he can assume that we are not willing to accept any of the other amendments. My hon. Friend argued his case on Second Reading. I doubt whether any party in government could accept it. It involves not just fees, but a loan, and calls for a holiday of five, 10 or 15 years before any money comes back to the Government. The problem with that is that it would cost us £100 million to £200 million—money that we could use elsewhere in a student support package. I do not have time to go into detail, but I assure my hon. Friend that we considered the idea carefully and we are not attracted to that amendment.
	New clause 5 is an attempt by the official Opposition—this was not much mentioned when it was moved—to take us back to the period pre-Dearing and pre-1998 when colleges could charge, but when every student had a non-means-tested grant to meet the charge. It is a back-to-the-future proposal. I am amazed at what is going on with the official Opposition. I very much respect their Front-Bench spokesmen. Throughout this debate on the future of higher education, there has been only one Back Bencher on the official Opposition Benches. [Interruption.] Well, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) is facing the right goal in this match.
	No one has mentioned Dearing or the national committee of inquiry that the previous Government set up. The Opposition say that we should go back to the period pre-Dearing and that there should be no fees whatever. They support amendment No. 128, as well they might—it was originally their amendment No. 21—but they were not always in favour of the position pre-Dearing. When the Dearing report was published, the Conservative party supported its principles. The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who was then shadow Secretary of State for Education, said that the Conservative party supported all the principles laid out in the Dearing report.
	Some time between that and the 2001 election, that turned into a pathetic statement that the answer to the funding problem in higher education was endowments. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) pointed out on Second Reading that £30 billion of endowment capital would be needed to raise the amount of money that we are providing for in the Bill.
	So we move from support for Dearing, whose report the Opposition commissioned when they were in government, to a frankly pathetic policy of endowments to solve the problem, to this debate on the future of higher education. To be fair, the Liberal Democrats have a principled stance, although I do not agree with it. I accept that the Government's stance is mildly controversial, but at least it sets out how we intend to tackle higher education. But Her Majesty's official Opposition tell us that they are in a hiatus, with absolutely no policy whatever. That is poor form, to use words that Opposition Members sometimes use.
	If that were not bad enough, we have the five principles that will guide Her Majesty's official Opposition when they do come up with a policy: to increase income for universities; to improve the financial position of students in respect of debt; to increase universities' freedom from central Government; not to increase taxes; and not to increase fees. It is no wonder that it is taking the Opposition a bit of time to come up with a policy when those are their guiding principles.
	The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) asked us to look across the waters at the system in New Zealand, and I am grateful to my university-educated hon. Friends who know that there are six universities in New Zealand. But since this form of university funding was introduced in New Zealand—albeit with a real rate of interest, which we are not introducing, on which it has had to backtrack participation among those from lower socio-economic backgrounds rose from 18 to 26 per cent. in three years, and participation among Maori students, the poorest of New Zealand's citizens, rose by 46.1 per cent. in six years. There is a clear record that if this policy is introduced properly, with a balanced package, it will not damage widening participation. Indeed, I would argue, as many Labour Members have argued, that it will support widening participation.

Tim Collins: The Minister will know that in New Zealand there was a 38 per cent. drop in the number of working-class males attending the most expensive courses. But on consistency, which the Minister seemed to be urging on Her Majesty's Opposition, if we unveil a policy that meets each of the five tests specified earlier, will he undertake to support it? Given that he refers to Dearing and to 1997 and 1998, why is one of the centrepieces of his argument in favour of this legislation the proposal to remove the up-front fees that his Government introduced in 1998?

Alan Johnson: I undertake, on the record, to present the hon. Gentleman with a Dan Dare badge if he comes up with such a policy. For ex-Eagle readers, there can be no greater accolade.
	While we are considering new clause 5, which goes back to the position pre-1998, let us spend a second discussing the Dearing inquiry. It is easy in a debate such as this to say what the problems are and what is wrong with our proposals if there is no alternative. Dearing looked studiously at the problem. An NUS representative who served on the national committee of inquiry that looked at all the options said that we could not continue to under-fund our universities as we had done in the past and that we must close the funding gap and tackle widening participation. It was Dearing who pointed out that in 40 years of free higher education with generous maintenance grants, the social class gap widened rather than narrowed.

Paul Farrelly: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the capped variable system in Australia has not really improved access because it has had the common-sense result: higher fees have worked one way while improved grants and maintenance have worked the other? For our policy to be generally progressive, we must take access seriously, and all the access measures that my right hon. Friend has introduced must be at the heart of the legislation, not just an add-on.

Alan Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend. I would argue that they are at the heart of the Bill, and I shall come to that in a moment.
	Dearing said that there were no easy options. He looked at graduate tax and different ways of proceeding. New clauses 8 and 9, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, provide that there would be no fees anywhere in the UK apart from Scotland. That would be the result of those new clauses: there would be no fees apart from in the one place where the Liberal Democrats are in coalition government. They say—I love to listen to this, because it is a really good line— "Ah, but that contribution of £2,000 is actually for the grant"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I remind him that he should be addressing the Chair. When he turns to address his side of the House, he is largely cut off from my hearing.

Alan Johnson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The Liberal Democrats argue that the contribution in Scotland goes towards a grant, not towards teaching. We are giving the grant free and putting the money towards teaching, but graduates still make a contribution. However, Dearing said that the real problem with underfunding in higher education is that relying on the taxpayer alone means that underfunding will always materialise. He said that, as well as the taxpayer putting in the lion's share—let us not forget that we are putting in an extra £3 billion of taxpayers' money, which is a 34 per cent. increase—universities need a substantial stream of funding that should be paid for by those at universities contributing once they have graduated. That is the essence of what Dearing recommended.

Phil Willis: Does the Minister accept that, after the introduction of the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998, the Government removed grant funding pound for pound with what students paid in fees? In the United States, which has a similar system to the one that the Government propose, as soon as there is an economic downturn—the latest is in California—the state removes funding and increases fees to compensate.

Alan Johnson: That is wrong. We explained this issue in Committee. When we came into government, Dearing was told that, for the next two years, there would be a further 6.5 per cent. reduction in university funding thanks to the previous Government. Dearing recommended that it should be a 1 per cent. reduction and said that that was all that universities could take. Given that we had the same spending commitments as the previous Government, it was as a result of our using fees that we managed to meet the Dearing recommendation of a 1 per cent. reduction. Since then, in this spending review and the next one, there will be a considerable increase in funding per student.
	The other point that I want to address relates to amendment No. 128. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) said that he believed—I accept that this is his belief—that what the amendment would ensure is in effect a fixed fee, deferred. What he means to ensure, and what he argued for, is that we should have no extra money for universities and that we should put in a huge amount from the taxpayer to defer just £1,000, rather than nought to £3,000, as we propose. There would not be a penny extra for universities and, in a sense, we would stay where we were and remain neutral in terms of the higher education funding gap.
	It does not take a Philadelphia lawyer to look at what the amendment would do. It would do what the official Opposition originally intended—take away every aspect of control over fees, as set out in clauses 22 to 27. That would be fine if we were not also repealing under schedule 6 the current rules in the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. Her Majesty's official Opposition have tabled two other amendments seeking to retain those provisions, but in the absence of those two amendments, the result of amendment No. 128 would be an unregulated higher education market with top-up fees in their true sense. That is the first crucial point.
	The second crucial point is what the result would be if my hon. Friend's amendment were carried with the support of the Conservative party and we also put back the two provisions that we would otherwise repeal from the 1998 Act. The result would be that we could not have the £2,700 maintenance grant that Labour Members, primarily, have convinced us to introduce by rolling up fee remission with grant. Under the 1998 system, fee remission must always equal the fee, which leaves no money for a grant. It would be possible to increase the fee and the fee remission, but extra taxpayers' money would have to be put in—there is a lot of taxpayers' money in there already—otherwise there would be no single, non-repayable maintenance grant of £2,700.

Win Griffiths: Whatever happens to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), he intended to get rid of the principle of variability. I, too, am worried about variability, although I am heartened a little by the New Zealand experience. I worry that access for students from low-income families will be damaged and that students may not take long courses, such as medicine. If the independent review comes up with proposals to change the system to improve access and overcome problems with long courses, will the Minister guarantee that the Government will accept them?

Alan Johnson: We have set up an independent commission reporting directly to Parliament because we want to listen to its recommendations. My hon. Friend does not want me to come out with platitudes, and I cannot say what the Government will do in three years' time or that we will accept any recommendation made by an independent commission. However, I assure my hon. Friends that the commission will make its recommendations to Parliament, and any Government that ignored them would be foolish.
	I shall go further: we are setting up an independent commission because we understand some of the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich, North, and for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) and other Labour Members about variable fees. If variable fees have a negative effect, the review will have happened early enough to change from variable fees to fixed fees.

Geraldine Smith: Will the Minister accept that it is morally wrong for students from identical backgrounds who have equal ability and who study the same subjects at different universities to pay widely varying fees? That cannot be right—it is not fair.

Alan Johnson: New clause 6 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, and new clause 7 argues the principle of variability without the technical deficiencies of amendment No. 128. New clause 7 also contains a technical deficiency, however, because it does not outlaw anyone charging less than the fee, which would result in the introduction of variable fees.
	Part-time students, who are mainly adults, pay unlimited variable fees, which are not deferred and there is no cap. The majority of part-time students come from working-class backgrounds, and they are looking to get into higher education having not been successful the first time round.
	We say that if universities all want to charge £3,000, they can. It is up to them to set their fees between nought and £3,000, rather than the Government insisting that every course at every university must be priced at £3,000, even if universities say, "We cannot run that course because we cannot attract enough students." Universities could introduce variable fees through the back door by giving discounts, so what is wrong with our saying openly that it is down to universities to decide fees?
	On the principle of fixed fees against variable fees, I presume that the Liberal Democrats will vote against new clause 6 if it comes to a vote. Their Treasury spokesman said in the Financial Times on 22 December, that Professor Giddens, to whom he was replying,
	"is absolutely right in his criticism of flat-rate fees. This is the worst of all worlds: a poll tax on students totally unrelated to the quality of higher education provided or the preferences of students."
	I presume that that is still the Liberal Democrat position.

Richard Burden: May I take my right hon. Friend back to his comments about the commission? On Second Reading, he gave an assurance that if the commission came up with a proposal to change the rate of variability after 2010, that would require primary legislation, but I do not see that in the Bill. Will he define what he would see to be such a change to the rate of variability?

Alan Johnson: I have only three minutes left. I have spoken to my hon. Friend about this before. I still say that if the commission recommended a change to the rate of variability, that would require primary legislation, and I am writing to him to tell him why I believe that to be the case. Other hon. Members have expressed agreement on the issue, but my hon. Friend and I have developed a misunderstanding. I am absolutely convinced that such a recommendation by the independent commission would require primary legislation post-2010, as well as pre-2010.
	We are prepared to accept amendments Nos. 129 and 130 because we have listened throughout to the concerns that my hon. Friends have expressed about ensuring that the £3,000 cap has a proper grip. We gave an assurance that it would be changed in the course of the next Parliament, and we have added that to the Bill. We gave an assurance that any change thereafter must be subject to an affirmative resolution in both Houses, but we could not see how to guarantee that it would be taken on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friends provided that by tabling amendment No. 130, which proposes an amendable resolution. We are therefore prepared to accept it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge is absolutely right on amendment No. 129, which also touches on an important issue in relation to amendment No. 128. Even if that amendment's technical difficulties were resolved, the Bill would still give the Secretary of State a power, but not a duty, to insist that the fee cap is maintained. Amendment No. 129 rightly turns that power into a duty, which is why we are prepared to accept it.
	We have had a long argument, and no one can say that we have not listened. We spent 11 hours in Committee on the issue of fixed fees versus variable fees. In three years, the independent commission will specifically consider that. We are introducing the grant, fee deferral, a much more benign system of repayment for students, and—for the first time—help on fee remission and a grant for part-time students. The extra £2 billion that we are providing to universities on top of the £3 billion that we are making available from the taxpayer will fund not only expansion and extra investment, but, at the centre of our proposals, the ability, through the regulator, genuinely to close the obscene social class gap in our higher education system. I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the Bill.

Tim Collins: The Minister gave the game away when he said, "I cannot say what the Government will do in three years' time", because indeed he cannot. He is trying to persuade his Back Benchers that the commission that he promised them on Second Reading will make all the difference. He cannot promise to abide by its conclusions. He cannot promise a level of Government support at the end of the comprehensive spending review, although the Government will spend less per student in every year throughout that period than the last Conservative Government spent in any year. He cannot guarantee that the £3,000 cap on top-up fees will stay for long; indeed, most vice-chancellors expect it rapidly to become not £3,000 a year, but £6,000, £9,000 or even £15,000 a year. New clause 5 is the only mechanism, alongside amendment No. 128, whereby all the Members of this House who stood on the manifesto pledge,
	"We will not introduce 'top-up' fees"
	can keep their word of honour to the electorate.
	It is no good any of us complaining of public cynicism about politicians if Labour Members vote cynically to break in the most outrageous way a clear manifesto pledge.
	The Government's proposals do not have the support of students, university teachers or further and higher education lecturers. They do not even have the support of all vice-chancellors. They are bad proposals that rightly divide the House. They are in clear breach of open and honest pledges to the House of Commons and the electorate. We commend new clause 5 as the way to restore trust in public life.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 378.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Mr. Speaker then proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Amendment proposed: No. 128, in page 8, line 37, leave out Clauses 22 to 27.—[Mr. Grogan.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 316.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 28
	 — 
	Meaning of "the relevant authority"

Amendment proposed: No. 71, in page 13, line 37, leave out
	'Director (as defined by section 29(1)'
	and insert
	'funding body (as defined in section 22(2))'.—[Mr. Willis.]
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 63, Noes 369.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 22
	 — 
	Power of secretary of state to impose condition as to student fees, etc.

Amendment made: No. 129, in page 8, line 38, leave out from beginning to 'a' in line 40 and insert
	'The Secretary of State must, when making any grant to a funding body under section 68 of the 1992 Act or section 7 of the 1994 Act, impose under subsection (1) of the section concerned'.—[Alan Johnson.]

Clause 24
	 — 
	Regulations under section 23(6) relating to basic or higher amount

Amendment made: No. 130, in page 11, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—
	'(ii) each House of Parliament has at any time after 1st January 2010 passed a resolution that, with effect from a date specified in the resolution, the higher amount should be increased to an amount specified in the resolution, and the increase is an increase to the specified amount with effect from the specified date.'.'[Alan Johnson.]
	Order for Third Reading Read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	This is an important moment for the future of higher education in this country. I believe that the decisions that the House has taken in considering this important Bill secure the future of our universities and enable them to make the economic and social contributions that our society needs. They prepare the country for the future in a way that, to be fair, I believe hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see. As the Bill goes to the other place, we are producing a measure for its consideration that guarantees more resources for universities, that will open and strengthen access to universities and that will ensure that people from the poorest communities in the country get a fair crack in our society.
	Many people deserve thanks, and I should like to take a moment to thank colleagues for what they have done. First, I thank the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education and our colleagues in the ministerial team, the Parliamentary Private Secretaries and in the Whips Office for what has been an outstanding performance. I know that no one will mind if I particularly thank my right hon. Friend for the tremendous leadership that he has shown throughout the consideration of the Bill.
	Secondly, I thank my official team, the Bill team led by Lesley Longstone, and her colleagues who have given outstanding support, as I hope that colleagues on both sides of the House would agree, to all those hon. Members who have wanted to make points. Thirdly, I want to thank political colleagues on both sides of the House. There have been substantial and difficult debates, with real tension, as everyone has been aware, but throughout people of different opinions have been ready to engage in serious dialogue in a way that I appreciate and that shows the strength of the House as a place where political consideration can properly take place. It would be invidious to name individuals, but I repeat that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have been ready to engage in serious dialogue about the important issues that we have discussed. I emphasise that the way in which they have done so is important for the reputation of the House and Parliament and for the future of our universities.
	Finally, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, the Clerks and, indeed, those in the wider university sector for their engagement in the debate on the Bill, which I have the honour to present on Third Reading this evening.

Bob Blizzard: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a good number of hon. Members will vote for the Bill with less than full enthusiasm, but they do so because he has responded to some of the deep concerns that people had by introducing a much larger student grant, by putting variability in a cage for a long time and by being willing to review the arrangements? As he will know, I am particularly interested in next year's review—the Langlands review. Will he briefly tell the House how he will deal with the Langlands review when it reports?

Charles Clarke: I appreciate that intervention, as it provides a good opportunity to say that we have tried throughout to have a serious debate about the kind of concerns that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have raised with seriousness. I asked Alan Langlands, the former chief executive of the NHS and vice-chancellor of Dundee university, to conduct a report that we have coded, "Gateway to the professions", as a means of ensuring that people from all backgrounds can get the professional education and training that they need, particularly those who are not from the very poorest families, but over a wider range. When the Bill receives Royal Assent, we will immediately ask him to commence his work, take evidence from people and report as rapidly as he can. That is an example of the kind of work that is very important.

Graham Allen: In the context of Royal Assent, will the Secretary of State also ensure that the Department is ready and willing to move very quickly to inform all secondary head teachers and the youngsters at those schools about the advantages that a £3,000 a year grant will give to those who qualify for it—those on incomes of less than £16,000?

Charles Clarke: I am happy to give that assurance. One of the sadnesses about the debate in the country is that many people have been worried about the Bill's implications, but not all of them understand in detail the precise meaning for them in their individual circumstances. When we are free to do so—that is, after Royal Assent—there will be a significant programme to explain in the most effective way, certainly to families and particularly to young people, precisely how the system will operate.
	I am glad to give that assurance.

Quentin Davies: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Charles Clarke: I will not, I regret. Under the agreement that we have made with the Opposition about timing, I must finish in a moment.
	Today's vote was not only for the future of higher education, but for the public sector reform agenda that is so critical for the country. To conclude on a partisan point, the official Opposition, as was brilliantly exposed by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), were shown to have failed utterly to live up to the challenges of the time. We accept the challenge. I commend the Bill to the House for its Third Reading.

Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me this brief opportunity to take part in the Third Reading debate, although I utterly deplore the fact that the Government did not protect the time for the debate. It is ludicrous to allow only 12 minutes for the Third Reading of such a controversial measure. It is not hard to guess why they have done that. The Government lost the argument about the policy comprehensively on Second Reading. They lost it again comprehensively in Committee, and they lost it yet again comprehensively during the debate on the last group of amendments, when my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) demolished their case in a particularly effective analysis of the consequences of the Bill.
	The Bill is bad for students, bad for universities, bad for the taxpayer and bad for democracy. It is bad for students because it imposes on them such a heavy burden of debt that some will find it hard to get a mortgage, others may have to delay starting a family, and all of them will find it costly to repay the loans that the Government have forced on them. The repayment process for those who do not achieve above-average salaries quickly may continue right through their 30s and until the age of 40.
	Equally important—a point that was made in the previous debate—the prospect of the high loans that students will have to take out, which will be up to £30,000 for a student studying at a university in London, will deter many potential students from applying to university in the first place. Sadly, the evidence shows that it is students from the poorest backgrounds who are most likely to be debt-averse, so the effect of the Government's policy of introducing top-up fees will be to discourage the very group of students about whom they claim to be most concerned.

Graham Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Yeo: No, I am sorry. I have only five minutes.
	The Bill is bad for universities because it attacks their independence in a way that no Government in the whole of our history have ever attempted to do. The access regulator will dictate to universities whom they can admit and whom they should exclude. The regulator will do so not on the basis of academic achievement or the potential of applicants to benefit from university study, but in pursuit of goals that have nothing whatever to do with enhancing the status of any university, and which will actively harm universities that aspire to world class.
	The Bill is bad for universities for a further reason. It does nothing to guarantee that their long-term funding needs will be met. Under the Labour Government, funding per student has been lower at all times than it was throughout the 18 years of Conservative government. Funding from the Department per student has fallen dramatically since 1997. Although Labour introduced tuition fees over five years ago, the Treasury clawed back all the extra income that universities might have hoped those fees would give them. Nothing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State has said in the past three months indicates that the same process of clawback will not be repeated.
	The Bill is bad for taxpayers as well, because although initially it may give the universities some extra money—there is no certainty about that—the amount it gives them will be far outweighed by the extra bill that taxpayers have to pay.
	Worst of all, the Bill is bad for democracy, because less than three years ago, Labour candidates campaigned for election on the basis of one of clearest and most unequivocal election promises that I can ever remember—that a Labour Government would not introduce top-up fees and had legislated to prevent them. The cynical and unprincipled way in which that promise is now being broken will further damage the faith of voters in politicians and in the whole political process, a faith that has already been sorely tested under the present Government. If Labour Ministers really wanted to undergo a change of heart about top-up fees, they should have included a pledge in their next election manifesto and campaigned honestly on that.
	The Government might just have got their Bill through the House today, but they have a long way to go before they win the argument in the country. I and my Conservative colleagues are delighted to have this chance to show that when we give a pledge to a voters, our word can be relied on, and I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to join us in opposing Third Reading tonight.

Phil Willis: When Government Back Benchers go back to their constituencies, let them realise that tonight they have voted through a Thatcherite Bill. They have changed the face of higher education in the face of a Conservative Opposition who have opposed them root and branch. I am deeply disappointed that we have reached a point where we will have a two-tier higher education system, based on ability—

It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Speaker put forthwith the Question, pursuant to Order [this day],
	The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 248.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Speaker: If it is convenient for the House, I propose to take motions 4 and 5 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Representation of the People

That the draft European Parliament (Disqualification) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.
	That the draft European Parliament (Number of MEPs) (United Kingdom and Gibraltar) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 11th March, be approved.—[Paul Clark.]
	Question agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 1st April, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Lords Messages have been received or until any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at this sitting has reported or until he has reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.—[Paul Clark.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Mobile Phone Masts

Oliver Heald: This is the petition of Sandra Cole, Councillor Tony Hunter and 1,632 other residents of Royston, Hertfordshire in my constituency.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of Sandra Evelyn Cole, James Richard Cole, Dennis Stephen Geraghty, Anthony Hunter and other residents of Royston, Hertfordshire
	Declares that residents of Royston, Hertfordshire are dismayed by the decision of NTL to site a mobile phone mast in Stamford Avenue, Royston close to a school and people's homes. They seek greater controls over the siting of mobile phone and other masts and are concerned about the impact of these on the health and well being of local residents, particularly children, including those attending the school, and on the street scene.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons shall urge the Government to give more control over mobile phone masts and other such antennae to local communities through local planning procedures and local councillors, and particularly that councillors should be able to take account of the proximity of schools and the health fears of local residents.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Morning-after Pill

Kevin McNamara: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children against morning-after pills in schools. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who will follow me, will present a similar petition. I think that I am the last Member of this House to have voted against the pernicious Abortion Act 1967. I therefore completely support SPUC's campaign against the morning-after pill.
	The petition reads:
	The petition of citizens of the United Kingdom
	Declares that the supplying to school children of abortifacient birth control drugs and devices is ethically and socially unacceptable and that such supply without the knowledge or consent of parents constitutes a serious assault on parental responsibility.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons do urge Her Majesty's Government to:
	(1) repeal or revoke any legislation allowing the supply of abortifacient birth control drugs and devices to school children, in particular the Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Amendment Order 2000 (SI 2000/1917) and section 63 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001; and
	(2) lay the aforementioned legislation again before the House of Commons, re-drafted so as to prohibit the supplying of abortifacient birth control drugs and devices to school children.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

David Atkinson: Following the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I, too, beg leave to present a substantial petition on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children against the morning-after pill in schools. I have been proud to work with that organisation during my 27 years in Parliament, and I fully support its campaign against the morning-after pill.
	The petition reads:
	The petition of citizens of the United Kingdom
	Declares that the supplying to school children of abortifacient birth control drugs and devices is ethically and socially unacceptable and that such supply without the knowledge or consent of parents constitutes a serious assault on parental responsibility.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons do urge Her Majesty's Government to:
	(1) repeal or revoke any legislation allowing the supply of abortifacient birth control drugs and devices to school children, in particular the Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Amendment Order 2000 (SI 2000/1917) and section 63 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001; and
	(2) lay the aforementioned legislation again before the House of Commons, re-drafted so as to prohibit the supplying of abortifacient birth control drugs and devices to school children.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

WANSFELL COLLEGE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.]—[Paul Clark.]

Eleanor Laing: I am most grateful for the opportunity this evening to present the important subject of the proposed closure of Wansfell college, which is in my constituency and lies on the edge of Epping Forest. The way in which a society deals with education funding is a mark of its civilisation. Indeed, we have spent most of today debating that subject—what exciting debates and votes they were. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for staying on after a long and arduous day of debating higher education. He and I served on the Standing Committee together for many hours. Although that business has not quite concluded, I am glad that he has time to devote to education business, that, although rather more local and particular, is nevertheless as important to all the people who are involved with Wansfell college as the large and nationally important measure that we debated earlier.
	I begin by paying tribute to Marilyn Taylor, the principal of Wansfell college, who, for the past 11 years, has worked night and day and weekends, along with her dedicated staff, to build Wansfell college into a popular and successful institution. I also pay tribute to the governors and friends of the college who work in their free time, out of love and respect for the place, to keep the grounds, gardens and building so beautifully. They also raise money to ensure the maintenance of the fabric of the college to which they are dedicated. It is especially well maintained, not only for the benefit of the people who visit from time to time but as an important asset to the village of Theydon Bois in which it is situated.
	It is sad that we have to face the imminent closure of such an excellent institution. The issue of the future of Wansfell is a classic case of the buck being passed from one authority or Government body to another, of responsibility being denied by all concerned, and of the merits of the case being lost in a pile of official paperwork and financial statistics. That is why it is so important to bring the matter directly to the Under-Secretary's attention on the Floor of the House.
	Wansfell college provides residential adult and community education. I could spend some interesting moments explaining exactly what the college does, but I do not need to do so because that is well documented and I expect that the Under-Secretary is well aware of it. I draw hon. Members' attention to the publication by City and Guilds called "Time to Learn", which lists many courses and which are popular and taken up by a wide spectrum of people in colleges that are similar to, but not exactly like, Wansfell college.
	City and Guilds would not produce such a booklet and Wansfell college would not feature in it if the courses were not popular, there was not a demand for them and a considerable benefit did not derive from them. I commend the booklet to hon. Members. I do not imagine that many people who serve here will have much time for extra learning, but I assure hon. Members that many hundreds of people do.
	Wansfell college is extremely popular, as is shown by the enormous number of letters that I have received from people who live in my constituency and from far and wide. They protest most strongly against the proposed closure. Again, I could read excellent quotations from some letters, which are well argued by people who present their arguments well. Not one argument can be rebutted. There is an enormous range of reasons why Wansfell college should remain open, and why so many people have protested so strongly against its proposed closure.
	Many other Members have received similar letters in support of the work of the college, and I suspect that the Minister knows that because he has replied to a large number of hon. Members who have passed their constituents' letters to him. I know, therefore, that he has been aware of this issue for some weeks. I fully expect him to try to answer my points simply by stating, as he did in his replies to other hon. Members, that Wansfell college is the responsibility of Essex county council and the Learning and Skills Council, and that it has nothing to do with the Government or with him. Thus he can try to pass the buck and to escape criticism, but that is simply not good enough. It is the Government who have made promises about lifelong learning, and they have a duty and a responsibility to keep their promises.The buck has been passed here, there and everywhere on this issue, and when it comes to the House of Commons and to the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, the buck must stop here.
	The director of skills and lifelong learning at the Learning and Skills Council has said:
	"The Learning and Skills Council does not directly fund Wansfell College, which is owned and managed by Essex County Council. It is ECC's decision on how and where funding is spent."
	In other words, "It's not us, guv. It's nothing to do with the Learning and Skills Council.]" Well, I challenge that. What is the point of having a Learning and Skills Council if it does not take positive action to provide learning and skills? By that, I mean learning and skills right across the board, not just the specific qualifications needed by certain people to undertake certain jobs. That is, of course, an important part of the LSC's work— indeed, it probably represents 90 per cent. of that work—but that does not mean that this other part of the council's work is irrelevant.
	Passing the buck is not a reasonable response to such a serious matter as the loss of this unique facility. Wansfell college is unique and it deserves to be treated as such. It has been ignored by everyone concerned: the Government, the Learning and Skills Council and Essex county council. The fact that it is the only adult residential college of its kind in an enormous area of south-east England has been ignored. There is no alternative; there will be nowhere else for people to go if Wansfell college closes.
	The Minister has tried, in his letters, to pass the buck to Essex county council. That is not surprising, as it is the usual ministerial response, but I want to tell him why this case is different. Passing the buck in that way is nothing more than a dereliction of duty. Essex county council is in a difficult position. It has a problem because its funding from the Government was severely cut last year and the year before that. The Minister might argue that it was not cut this year, but finance has to be looked at as an ongoing matter. The world does not stop and start at the beginning and end of each financial year. The Minister looks puzzled; perhaps I should put that in a different way. There is no point in looking at the funding statistics for one year and saying that they have gone up by a certain percentage if, in the previous two years, they went down by a much larger percentage. If we look at the overall position, the facts are undeniable: over a three or four-year period, the Government have drastically reduced their financial support for Essex county council. That has put the council in an extremely difficult position and forced it to consider ways of cutting its budget and maximising its resources, or of massively increasing council tax.
	Essex county council has been a responsible local authority, and it is rightly trying to keep council tax down. Therefore, Essex has had to examine its policy on the provision of adult learning, among other matters, directly because of the Government's financial decisions. I could go over all the arguments about finance and funding for Essex county council, but I will not do so because I accept that that is not the Minister's responsibility, and I will not make unreasonable requests of him this evening. I do not expect him to answer for Essex county council—[Interruption.] I am glad that his Parliamentary Private Secretary agrees.
	I want to use the time available to focus on the issues that the Minister can address. I am sure that if he is well briefed on this subject, he will have seen the decision from Essex county council, the reasons prepared for the executive and audit scrutiny committee, and the way in which the matter was looked at on 23 March and subsequently voted on. I will not rehearse the arguments on that.
	However, in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), dated 16 February this year, the chief executive of Essex county council rightly said:
	"A target of £90 million"—
	£90 million—
	"to be raised through the sale of property over this and the following two years, has been set by elected Members. The money is to be used in funding service provision, to supplement the Capital Programme and to contain Council Tax increases . . . The county council is therefore reviewing its remit for residential Adult Learning to determine its value in meeting the learning needs of Essex residents".
	He goes on to make two arguments in favour of closure, one of which is valid and one of which is not—that is the crux of the matter.
	First, the chief executive argues that Wansfell college has had a deficit over the past three years. That is technically true if we just look at the figures. The Minister appears incredulous—I do not deny that we must look at the figures, but we must also look at what lies behind those figures and how such a deficit has occurred. The answer is that the deficit occurred because of a sudden and dramatic cut in funding, which came without warning, over the last few years.
	Were the Minister to examine the figures looking forward to the extrapolation of future funding, as well as looking backwards, it would become obvious that the deficit has been made up and that it will be further made up. Wansfell college is a viable going concern. It is a thriving business that makes money. It could be self-funding in its running costs. The argument that Wansfell college must be closed because its running costs must be subsidised is therefore simply not true.
	Anyone who examines financial statistics, in any walk of life, knows that one can prove almost anything by figures. Certainly, one can prove that Wansfell college has been in financial difficulties. One can also prove, however, that because it is so popular it has no difficulty attracting people to its courses. People are willing and happy to pay the prices of those courses, and especially the residential costs—which are very reasonable and cover the costs of residential provision at the college. Because it is not difficult for the college to attract customers, it is not difficult for the college to make money. It will not be difficult in coming years for the college to attract people to pay the fees that it charges to build up even more of a profitable going concern. That argument is therefore simply not valid.
	There is another problem, however, which is increasingly affecting adversely almost every aspect of life in the Epping Forest area and other similar areas in the south-east of England. I refer to land and property prices. One of Wansfell college's great attractions is its location, on the very edge of our beautiful, ancient Epping Forest. I am not biased when I say that Epping Forest is clearly one of the most beautiful areas in the country. That means that the land on which the college stands would be very valuable if it were sold for housing development, for example. If we go in the direction in which we are currently going, there will be an unsustainable balance in our environment. There will be far too many houses and no other facilities, because there is such a drive to sell land for housing development in our area. There will be no schools, hospitals, transport facilities, doctors, corner shops or any other kind of public or, indeed, private service provision. The Government seem to make finance, and nothing else, their criterion for environmental and social planning.
	The Essex county council argument that is valid concerns the significant proportion of people who attend the college and come from outside Essex. I should say, to be fair to the council, that it is not its responsibility to provide education for people from all over the country; that is the Government's duty. By passing the buck to Essex county council, they are avoiding that duty.
	It is no surprise, when it comes to issues such as this, that the Government say one thing and do another. Chapter 1 of the skills strategy White Paper—the Minister sighs, but the White Paper constitutes the Government's promise of what they will do for learning and skills councils and lifelong learning—gave a commitment. It said that the Government would
	"safeguard the provision in each local area of a wide range of learning for adults, for culture, leisure, community and personal fulfilment purposes."
	It does not just say, "We will provide training for jobs for 20-year-olds, or 19-year-olds, or 25-year-olds." The commitment that it gives sounds good, and it is good, but the Government do not follow it through. If Wansfell college closes, that will prove that they say one thing and do another.
	As usual, the Government are blowing their own trumpet. In that same White Paper, they say:
	"During the course of the past six years, significant process has been made in our quest to make high quality lifelong learning a reality from the cradle to the grave."
	They are taking credit for the progress that has been made, while at the same time halting progress at Wansfell college. If they stand by and let the college disappear for ever—if it closes now it will never be resurrected in any form—they will cut off an educational opportunity for a significant section of the population.
	We must ask ourselves why the Government will not take steps to save Wansfell college. Why will they not direct the Learning and Skills Council, help Essex county council, or take over responsibility for a college that is an asset not just to Epping Forest and to Essex, but to the whole country? Is it because so many of those who attend the college are over 60? If there were discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or ethnic origin, that would be politically incorrect and not allowed, but discrimination on the ground of age does not matter. That will be proved if the Minister does nothing.
	Are the Government failing to act because of location? Is that because Wansfell is not in the inner city and the Government want to put all their education provision into the inner cities, pouring money into certain parts of the country and ignoring other parts, notably Essex and Epping Forest? If the Minister thinks that Wansfell serves only what he might consider the leafy suburbs and the countryside of Essex, he is quite wrong. A large proportion of the people who attend Wansfell college come from inner London.
	It is no coincidence that such an institution is on the edge of Epping Forest, because Epping Forest itself was one of the first facilities provided for the people of the inner cities. Queen Victoria gave Epping Forest to the Corporation of the City of London in 1882, and in the speech that she made in Epping Forest when she did so she said:
	"It gives me the greatest satisfaction to dedicate this beautiful Forest to the enjoyment of my people for ever."
	Queen Victoria spoke those words specifically to encourage people to come out of the dirty city and enjoy the fresh air of Essex. Wansfell college is part of that historic, ongoing provision. It is a great asset, which is about to be lost.
	I am not asking much of the Minister this evening because I know that he does not have the power simply to say, "All right, we'll keep it open." Although he cannot say that, however, I ask him for two things. The first is a delay in the closure of Epping Forest—

Ivan Lewis: Of Epping Forest?

Eleanor Laing: I am sorry, a delay in the closure of Wansfell college. Epping Forest college is another matter—it is doing perfectly well.
	I ask the Minister for a delay in the closure of Wansfell college so that it is not lost for ever this autumn. Secondly, I ask him to look at other ways of providing funding for institutions such as Wansfell college, which serve not just a local area but the community and the country as a whole. Will he consider ways of keeping open this valuable asset? If he does not do so, he is reneging on the Government's promises.

Ivan Lewis: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this Adjournment debate, although I do not congratulate her on leaving me only a short time—five minutes—to respond. There are few Conservative Members with whom I would like to spend such an historic evening, but she probably comes quite high up my list.
	Where we agree is on the fact that Wansfell college has, over a number of years, provided extremely important learning opportunities to a wide range of people. I pay tribute to the leaders of that college, the governing body and the staff for their work to provide learning opportunities for many people, some of whom might otherwise have been denied them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has mentioned a pleasant few days that he spent there some years ago, tutoring a maths course. He also told me about some of the excitement that he had, singing "Danny Boy" in the early hours and so on; he certainly has fond memories of Wansfell college.
	There is significant consensus that Wansfell is a good college, with good provision, which plays its part in ensuring that we deliver high quality lifelong learning to people in that area and in our country. However, I must part company with the hon. Lady over her attempt to pass the buck and to deflect attention and responsibility for this matter from Essex county council, which has made this decision. I do not make a judgment on whether that decision is right or wrong, but it has been made by Conservative-controlled Essex county council, which the hon. Lady should surely have more influence over as the local Member of Parliament.
	I will expand in a minute on the additional resources specifically being invested by the Government in lifelong learning. I would make the point to the hon. Lady, and through her to her constituents, that when the shadow Chancellor recently committed the Conservative party to future spending plans, he said that it would attempt to match the present Government on schools and the national health service. The consequences for post-16 education, for Sure Start, and for anything that is not schools within the education and skills budget, based on that commitment, would be horrendous—there would be no hope for colleges like Wansfell. Hon. Members should not come here and try to mislead their constituents by pretending that this closure is somehow the consequence of the Government's policy; the hon. Lady's Conservative colleagues on Essex county council have failed dismally to reflect the views that she expressed in this debate.
	The hon. Lady says that the county council has had financial difficulties not just this year, when the amount that it has been awarded has increased, but in the preceding two years, but that does not stack up in terms of the history. In 2000—01, the college deficit was £50,000. By the following year, it had risen to £64,000. In 2002—03, apparently a difficult year, the college was given further additional funding of £37,000 by the county council to help reduce the deficit. It also paid the salary for a year of a full-time co-ordinator to help move the college forward in a year when, as the hon. Lady says, it was having difficulties. In 2003-04, the college has received a total of £93,500 in addition to its core funding of £103,000. The total shortfall carried toward from 2001—02 and 2002—03 was wiped out, apparently by the county council, at the end of the 2002—03 financial year, and in 2003—04 the college moved to the same funding formula as adult community colleges, which actually resulted in a 7 per cent. increase in funding.
	The hon. Lady cannot come here and try to deflect attention. I quote her Conservative colleague, the cabinet member for lifelong learning on Essex county council, Bonnie Hart, who said:
	"I have serious concerns about continuing to fund a residential college which isn't wholly benefiting Essex people. My remit is for Essex as a whole."
	The Conservative council maintains that it is closing Wansfell primarily because of its deficit, but it also cites problems with limited disabled access, the state of repair of the attractive Victorian building, the fact that the college is full only at weekends and the fact that 59 per cent. of learners who use the college come from outside Essex. The county council has considered the case for Wansfell college very objectively, in a very detailed way, and has made a choice at a local level to close this college. What is dishonourable is for the hon. Lady to come here and imply—
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at eight minutes past Eight o'clock.